Execution proceedings do not become inexecutable due to non-impleadment of a legal heir if that omission is cured by a subsequent impleadment order, especially when the petitioner has suppressed previous similar litigation regarding the same subject matter.

ORDER

Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 28.11.2025 passed in E.A.No.13 of 2025 in E.P.No.589 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.343 of 2012, dismissing the petitioners petition filed under Section 47 of CPC, praying to declare execution proceedings as not maintainable on the ground of non-

impleadment of all legal heirs of the deceased as judgment debtor.

2.The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the lower Court.

3.The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased judgment debtor who was a tenant under the respondents father. The respondents father filed R.C.O.P.No.343 of 2012 against the petitioners father for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960. The R.C.O.P was decreed on 01.10.2012. Thereafter the respondents filed E.P.No.589 of 2018 for vacant possession of the demised premises. In the E.P, the petitioners filed E.A.No.13 of 2025 under Section 47 of CPC, objecting to the executability of the decree on the ground that one of the legal heirs of the deceased judgment debtor was not impleaded. The said E.A was dismissed by the Executing Court, on the ground that necessary applications for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased were already filed and allowed by the Court. The Executing Court finding no merit in the petition dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Executing Court, the above Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4.The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition, is that one of the legal heirs of the deceased judgment debtor was not impleaded in the execution proceedings and therefore there was a fundamental jurisdictional defect in the execution proceedings rendering it inexecutable.

5.The learned counsel for the respondent relying on the counter filed in CMP No.10207 of 2026, submitted that there are no merits in the CRP and that the present CRP is a gross abuse of process of Court, since earlier the petitioners had filed similar petition, which was dismissed by the lower Court. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners wantonly suppressed the earlier petition filed by them under Section 47 of CPC and its dismissal by the Executing Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the Executing Court was justified in rejecting the petition, since the respondents application to implead the legal heirs in E.A.No.94 of 2019 was allowed on 26.06.2025 and the application to implead the 4^th petitioner herein in E.A.No.12 of 2025 was also allowed on 28.11.2025. The learned counsel therefore submitted that suppressing the above facts, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed and hence, it deserves to be dismissed.

6.Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

7.The only point that arises for consideration is whether the execution petition filed by the respondent is inexecutable for non-impleadment of one of the legal heirs, S.Saravanan, 4^th petitioner herein.

8.The Executing Court found that the respondents had filed necessary application for impleading all the legal heirs and same were allowed for effective adjudication of the case. The Executing Court therefore found no substance or merit in the contention of the pettioner's that necessary parties were not impleaded in the EP and as such the same was inexecutable. The petitioners grievance is that the 4^th petitioner was not impleaded in the execution proceedings and therefore the execution proceedings in the absence of all the legal heirs was inexecutable. The petitioners in their petition did not mention about E.A.No.94 of 2019 filed by the respondents to implead the petitioners 1 to 3 and the 5^th pe