Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Aruchamy – Appellant
Versus
Ramakrishnan – Respondent
CRP No. 807 of 2026|CMP No.4329 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.Deivasigamani
For the Respondents: L.Mouli
An application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be used to challenge property descriptions that have already been settled and confirmed in a court-executed sale deed, especially when the objector previously participated in those proceedings without raising such concerns.
Headnote:The revision petitioner challenged the dismissal of an application filed under S.47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, contending that the decree holders failed to provide an accurate description of the suit property, specifically regarding the Survey Number, in execution proceedings. The lower court dismissed the application, noting that the petitioner had actively participated in both the original suit and execution proceedings and that the sale deed had already been executed through the court. The central issue was whether there was a discrepancy in the property description in the execution petition. Upon reviewing the parent sale deed and the court-executed sale deed, the Court found that the boundaries, survey numbers, and extent were identical, thereby holding that the objections raised by the judgment debtor lacked merit. The court determined that the application under S.47 was an attempt to hinder the execution of a decree that had already reached the stage of court-executed transfer. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, and the trial court is directed to conclude the Execution Petition within eight weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the revision petitioner's challenge against the dismissal of an s.47 application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. verification of property description consistency in decree execution. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. directives for the timely disposal of pending execution proceedings. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
Aggrieved over the dismissal of the docket order dated 13.11.2025 passed in E.A.C.F.R.No.30989/2025, the judgment debtor has preferred the above revision.
2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that in the Execution Petition, the respondents/decree holders have not mentioned proper Survey Number and also description of the property, without which, they attempted to take delivery of the property. Therefore, the judgment debtor has filed an application in E.A.C.F.R.No.30989/2025 under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code. The executing court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor has filed the present revision. The trial court has held that the petitioners are the defendants in the suit and they have participated in the suit proceedings as well as in the execution proceedings in EP No.24/14 and the sale deed has also been executed through Court of law and dismissed the application. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been filed.
3. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the grievance of the revision petitioner is that the decree holders have not correctly described the suit property without which they are not entitled to take the property. But on perusal of the parent sale deed 17.09.2003 as well as the sale deed executed through Court of law dated 17.10.2016, it is found that the properties found in the parent sale deed as well as the sale deed executed through court of law are one and the same and there is no discrepancy in respect of boundaries and the survey numbers.
4. Based on the sale deed, the decree holders filed execution petition in E.P.No.24 of 2014, , wherein, the description of the property was correctly mentioned along with boundaries and also the extent of the properties. Therefore, the boundary description, extent of the property and the survey numbers are one and the same and there is no discrepancy as alleged by the petitioner/judgment debtor.
5. In view of the above, the rejection order made by the trial Judge requires no interference. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders that since the judgment debtor is causing hurdle to execute the decree, the respondents/decree holders are not able to execute the decree.
T.V.THAMILSELVI.,J sr
7. Since the suit is of the year 2009. the trial court is directed to dispose of E.P.No.24 of 2014 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
