Mere pendency of second appeal without stay does not bar execution of eviction decree.

ORDER

The tenant is the civil revision petitioner.

2.O.S.No.77 of 1996 is a suit for ejectment. This suit, after contest, was decreed by the learned Principal District Munsif at Kuzhithurai on 05.05.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred a regular appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge at Kuzhithurai. The First Appeal too, came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments ordering eviction, the tenant states that he preferred a second appeal before this Court in S.A.(MD) No.413 of

2025.

3.In the meantime, the landlord/plaintiff/decree holder presented E.P.No.38 of 2021 to take possession of the property. In the said proceedings, the tenant/civil revision petitioner/judgment debtor was served. He remained ex parte. After the EP had been languishing for a period of four years, by an order dated 30.04.2025, the learned Executing Judge granted an order to break open of locks and for police aid. Challenging the same, the present revision.

4.This Court entertained the revision and granted an interim order of stay on 22.05.2025. The landlord moved a vacate stay application in CMP(MD) No.8662 of 2025.

5.After narrating the circumstances, the landlord pointed out that the challenge in the revision is only to the consequential order passed for breaking open of the locks and for police aid and not the main order of delivery itself. Hence, it is the plea of the landlord that the revision itself is untenable.

6.When I took up the matter for hearing on 24.04.2026, I heard both sides. I did not find any merits in the revision. Yet, as the tenant has been in possession and occupation of the property for a long time, in order to give the tenant an opportunity to vacate and hand over possession without the landlord resorting to execution proceedings, I called upon Mr.Sonaimuthu to state as to how long the tenant requires to vacate and hand over possession. I adjourned the matter to today.

7.When I took up the matter today, Mr.Sonaimuthu did not file an affidavit nor did he state the time the tenant requires to hand over possession. Mr.Sonaimuthu's plea is that he has made a mention before the Court dealing with the second appeal to take up the appeal for hearing and consequently, wants this revision to be adjourned for a period of five weeks. This shows that the tenant is not inclined to vacate and hand over peaceful possession by filing an affidavit of undertaking, but wants to contest the proceedings.

8.The ground on which the revision has been entertained is that the tenant has preferred a second appeal. Unless and until, orders of stay are produced, mere pendency of an appeal is not a ground to defer execution. This is extremely clear by a perusal of Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As on date, the tenant has not been successful in getting any orders of stay in S.A.(MD) No.413 of 2025.

9.Furthermore, as rightly contended by the landlord/decree holder, what has been challenged is the order dated 16.04.2025. This order merely puts the decree into execution. A landlord, who has fought for nearly 30 years and more, is entitled to the fruits of the decree. I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Executing Judge. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.

10.There shall be a direction to the learned Principal District Munsif at Kuzhithurai to execute the decree in O.S.No.77 of 1996 forthwith and grant all such orders that are necessary to ensure that the landlord takes possession of the property. The learned Principal District Munsif at Kuzhithurai, shall remember the judgment of the Supreme Court in Periyammal Vs. V.Rajamani, 2025 INSC 329 wherein the Supreme Court had directed that pendency of an execution pro