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) 34558

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. MALA, J
Ravivarman (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
T.G.Rangaswamy (Deceased) – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition



Advocates:
For the Petitioner(s): A.Leeban, J.Jahith Rifai, Gireeshvaran. R, Vinoth Raj P
For the Respondent(s):

Court directs expedited execution where respondents' delays and late unnumbered appeal disclosure indicate lack of bona fides.

Headnote:Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners sought expedition of execution proceedings (E.P. No.75 of 2023) following decree in O.S. No.127 of 2018 dated 06.02.2023 for recovery of possession. Facts reveal suit decreed in petitioners' favour; execution filed 01.06.2023; respondents delayed by adjournments and late disclosure of unnumbered appeal AS.SR.No.62066/2023. Court found respondents' conduct lacking bona fides, indicating deliberate protraction. Issue: Whether direction needed to expedite execution despite pending appeal in SR stage. Ratio: Execution court history showed adjournments from 15.04.2025 to 27.01.2026; first memo on appeal filed three years post-EP, prima facie obstructive. Civil Revision Petition allowed; executing court directed to dispose E.P. No.75/2023 on merits within eight weeks.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks expedited execution of possession decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondents deliberately prolong litigation. (Para 4 , 5)
3. delays and late appeal disclosure show bad faith. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court orders execution disposal within eight weeks. (Para 8 , 9)

ORDER

(1) The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking for a direction to the Executing Court to expedite the disposal of EP.No.75/2023 filed to execute the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2023, made in OS.No.127/2018, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

(2) Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents herein, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

(3) The petitioners in the above Civil Revision Petition, filed a suit for recovery of possession and for cost. The suit was contested by the defendants and a judgment and decree was passed in favour of the petitioners on 06.02.2023. Pursuant to the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the petitioner filed an execution petition in EP.No.75/2023 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Vellore, to execute the decree.

(4) The petitioners state that the respondents were deliberately prolonging the litigation and obstructing the petitioners from enjoying the fruits of the decree and therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file the above Civil Revision Petition for the aforesaid relief.

(5) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials placed on record.

(6) From the materials placed before this Court, particularly, the adjudication history of the EP proceedings, it is seen that EP.No.75/2023 was filed on 01.06.2023 before the learned Additional District Judge, Vellore.. It is further seen that the EP was adjourned periodically for counter of the respondents and for enquiry. It was only on 27.01.2026, the respondents filed a Memo stating that the First Appeal in AS.SR.No.62066/2023 was filed and was pending. This Court finds from the adjudication history that right from 15.04.2025 till 27.01.2026, the respondents sought adjournments in the enquiry and for the first time, on 27.01.2026, they filed the Memo stating that the appeal in AS.SR.No.62066/2023 was filed.

(7) The judgment and decree in the suit in OS.No.127/2018, was passed on 06.02.2023. The EP was filed by the petitioners on 01.06.2023. Three years after the EP was filed, the respondents, for the first time, by Memo dated 27.01.2026, revealed to the Execution Court that an appeal was filed by them in AS.SR.No.62066/2023. It is also pertinent to note here that though the appeal was filed as early as in the year 2023, till 27.01.2026, the same was not numbered and therefore, this Court is of the view that the conduct of the respondents prima facie indicates lack of bona fides and suggest an attempt to protract and obstruct the execution proceedings. Moreover, even the appeal is still in SR stage.

(8) Hence, this Court is inclined to direct the Executing Court, namely, the learned Additional District Judge, Vellore, to expedite the hearing of EP.No.75/2023, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(9) The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

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