SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21071

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J
Kanaga – Appellant
Versus
Perumal (Died) – Respondent
CMP.No.5597 of 2026|CRP|OS.No.9/2017|AS.No.3 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Pa.Sudesh Kumar

A party must secure interim relief in a pending appeal to stay execution proceedings; failure to do so justifies the execution order.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the CPC. Facts of the Case: The petitioners challenge the execution of a decree in OS.No.9 of 2017 and request interim relief during a pending appeal (AS.No.3 of 2022).

Findings of Court:
The court finds no merit in the petition as the petitioners had not secured interim orders in their first appeal.

Issues: The court frames the issues around the merit of the execution order in light of the pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court states that the Executing Court acted correctly as the stay application was not considered.

Result: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. stay of execution proceedings pending appeal (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's authority in execution orders and prioritization of appeal matters (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

ORDER

Heard Mr.Pa.Sudesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners have sought for stay of the Execution Proceedings launched by the respondents/decree holders pursuant to the decree granted in OS.No.9 of 2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they already challenged the judgment of the Trial Court in AS.No.3 of 2022 before the Sub Court, Tirupathur and even though an application for stay in I.A.No.1 of 2023 was filed, the First Appellate Court has not granted any interim protection to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has come up by way of this Revision Petition challenging the order of delivery of possession passed by the Executing Court.

3. I do not see any merit in the revision, since admittedly, the petitioners having filed the first appeal, were not successful in getting any interim orders, pending the first appeal. Therefore, there was no error committed by the Executing Court in ordering delivery taking note of the fact that the stay application was not entertained by granting any interim order by the First Appellate Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner however would seek for at least a direction to the First Appellate Court, namely, Sub Court, Tirupathur, to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

5. Considering that the petitioners have suffered adverse orders in the Execution Petition, I find this request of the learned counsel for the petitioner is reasonable. In view of the limited order that has been passed in the revision, I dispense with notice to the respondents/decree holders. The Sub Court, Tirupathur shall decide the stay application on a priority basis within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, decide the appeal in AS.No.3 of 2022 on merits. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top