IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on: 05.01.2026 Pronounced on:13.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP. Nos.3289, 4940 & 4518 of 2025 and CMP. Nos.26789, 18206, 24967 & 22936 of 2025 CRP. No.3289 of 2025: 1.M/s.Mathi Enterprises, Rep. by its Properietrix M.Alli.

2.M.Alli Petitioners Vs Mr.Dibyendu Chaudhury Respondent PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in E.A. SR. No.17874 of 2024 in E.P. No.4715 of 2023 in O.S. No.5387 of 2011 dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

CRP. No.4940 of 2025:

M.Ponmozhi Petitioner Vs

1. Mr.Dibyendu Chaudhury

2.M/s.Mathi Enterprises, Rep. by its Properietrix M.Alli.

3.M.Alli Respondents PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in E.A. SR. No.34633 of 2025 in E.P. No.4715 of 2023 in O.S. No.5387 of 2011 dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

CRP. No.4518 of 2025: 1.M/s.Mathi Enterprises, Rep. by its Properietrix M.Alli.

2.M.Alli Petitioners Vs Mr.Dibyendu Chaudhury Respondents PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in E.P. No.4715 of 2023 in O.S. No.5387 of 2011 dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.L.Venkatesan in all CRPs For Respondent : Mr.V.Girishankar in both CRPs **********

COMMON ORDER

These revision petitions have been filed against rejection of the Section 47 Application at the SR stage; challenging the order directing execution of the sale deed and dismissal of application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.

2. I have heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.L.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Girishankar, learned counsel for the respondent in all the CRPs.

3. Mr.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the respondent was a tenant under the petitioner and claiming under an agreement of sale for purchasing the subject property, the respondent had instituted a suit for specific performance of the said agreement of sale and the matter attained finality before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the decree for specific performance, but enhanced the sale consideration alone. Mr.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel would however sate that against the respondent, the Rent Control Proceedings especially for fixation of fair rent had been initiated and now the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the respondent may become liable to pay more than a Crore of rupees, subject to final outcome of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would further state that the respondent is in occupation of only one portion of the suit property and the remaining portions are under the control of the petitioner alone who is also collecting rents from tenants occupying the other portions. It is also the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that there is a suit pending before the original side of this Court in C.S.No.344 of 2014 and that I had passed orders in Application in A.No.3858 of 2025 on 08.08.2025, giving liberty to the petitioner to obstruct to the Execution Proceedings.

4. Strong reliance is placed on, by the learned Senior Counsel, on Paragraph No.7 of the said order passed by me on 08.08.2025, vacating the interim order of status quo passed in A.No.2454 of 2024. It is therefore, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that when this Court had granted liberty to obstruct to the Execution, the Executing Court ought not to have dismissed the Section 47 application and the Order 21 Rule 97 Application without any enquiry. He would therefore state that a fai