BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 22.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP(MD) No.632 2026 Arulmigu Salavai Karuppanasamy Temple Yanaikkal Madurai through its Fit Person/Executive Officer Arulmigu Jayaveera Anjaneyar Temple Simmakkal Madurai. ... Petitioner Vs

1.S.Tamil Selvi

2.C.Thathuperumal ... Respondents PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, to set aside the orders passed in E.A.No.5 of 2022 in EP.No.137 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.257 of 2006 dated 31.10.2025 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manohar

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order made in E.A.No.5 of 2022 in EP.No.137 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.257 of 2006 dated 31.10.2025 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.

2.The matter is listed today under the caption 'for maintainability'.

3.From the perusal of papers, it is seen that Registry of this Court has already raised an objection as how the present Civil Revision Petition is maintainable as against the order made in E.A.No.5 of 2022 in EP.No. 137 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.257 of 2006 dated 31.10.2025, when an appeal remedy is available under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC.

4.When the same was put-forth before the learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the judgment in Periyammal (dead) through legal representatives and others Vs. V.Rajamani and another reported in (2025) 9 Supreme Court Cases 568, wherein, the following observations were made, he would submit that the present petition is maintainable.

“46. In Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajiv Trust and Anr. reported in 1998 (3) SCC 723, a three Judge Bench of this Court has observed that a third party to the decree including the transferee pendente lite can offer resistance or obstruction and his right has to be adjudicated under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:

“9. At the outset, we may observe that it is difficult to agree with the High Court that resistance or obstructions made by a third party to the decree of execution cannot be gone into under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code. Rules 97 to 106 in Order 21 of the Code are subsumed under the caption "Resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holder or purchaser". Those rules are intended to deal with every sort of resistance or obstructions offered by any person. Rule 97 specifically provides that when the holder of a decree for possession of immovable property is resisted or obstructed by-“any person” in obtaining possession of the property such decree-holder has to make an application complaining of the resistance or obstruction. Sub-rule (2) makes it incumbent on the court to proceed to adjudicate upon such complaint in accordance with the procedure laid down.

10. It is true that Rule 99 of Order 21 is not available to any person until he is dispossessed of immovable property by the decree-holder. Rule 101 stipulates that all questions "arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under rule 97 or rule 99" shall be determined by the executing court, if such questions are "relevant to the adjudication of the application". A third party to the decree who offers resistance would thus fall within the ambit of Rule 101 if an adjudication is warranted as a consequence of the resistance or obstruction made by him to the execution of the decree. No doubt if the resistance was made by a transferee pendente lite of the judgment debtor, the scope of the adjudication would be shrunk to the limited question whether he is such transferee and on a finding in the affirmative regarding that point the execution court has to hold that he has no right to resist in view of the clear language contained in Rule 102. Exclusion of such a transferee from raising further contentions is based on the salutary principle adumbrated in Section 52 of the Transfer of property Act.

.....

14