Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J
Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Limited – Appellant
Versus
S.V.Krishnarama Raja & Firm Cotton Sales Company – Respondent
C.R.P.(MD)No.3631 of 2025|C.M.P.(MD)Nos.19229 of 2025, 1269 and 4816 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.L.Somayaji, T.Balaji
For the Respondents: S.Venkatesh, A.Sivaji, Chithra Sampath, R.V.Rajkumar
The Executing Court is legally mandated to dispose of applications filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in a time-bound manner, as they concern the validity of the execution proceedings and cannot be kept indefinitely pending or adjourned sine die.
Headnote:The case concerns a long-pending execution petition arising from an ex parte money recovery decree. The petitioner, as the judgment debtor, challenged the execution process, including an auction sale, due to procedural irregularities and the failure of the Executing Court to dispose of applications filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court examined whether the Executing Court properly addressed these pending applications and ensured procedural fairness. The core issue was whether the Executing Court could proceed with execution while pivotal applications challenging the validity of the sale remained undecided for over a decade. The court reasoned that applications under S.47 CPC must be adjudicated on their merits to ensure justice, rather than leaving them adjourned sine die, as this effectively denies the parties a resolution of their legal grievances. The Court directed the Executing Court to dispose of the pending Section 47 application and related challenges within a period of four months, while maintaining the status quo on property alienation in the interim.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of procedural history and disputes regarding property auction in execution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. the obligation of the executing court to adjudicate pending section 47 applications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court directives for time-bound resolution and maintaining status quo during litigation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to the execution petition in E.P.No.315 of 2000 in O.S.No.421 of 1982 on the file of the I-Additional Sub Judge, Madurai and declare as void by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
O R D E R
Heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Balaji, appearing for the Civil Revision Petitioner. Mr.S.Venkatesh representing Mr.A.Sivaji, for the Respondents 2 & 3 and Ms.Chithra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.R.V.Rajkumar, for the 4th Respondent.
2. The Civil Revision Petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the judgment debtor in E.P.No.315 of 2000.
3. O.S.No.421 of 1982 is a suit for recovery of money. In the said proceedings, the suit schedule-mentioned property was attached. The extent of the property is about 10 acres. The amount claimed in the suit was about Rs.1,12,333.63/-. An ex parte decree was passed in the suit on 18.06.1997. On 02.08.2000, an application for sale of the attached properties was presented. Curiously enough, the extent of the property, which was the subject matter of attachment, was increased from about 10 acres to 13.96 acres. The remaining 3.96 acres or thereabouts, belonged to M/s.ICICI Bank, which had purchased the same under a securitisation sale.
4. The property was initially valued at Rs.50,00,000/-. The upset price was reduced step by step on 07.11.2002, 20.04.2004, 29.07.2005 and finally on 06.12.2007 to Rs.25,00,000/-. To make it clear, in 2002 the property was valued at Rs.50,00,000/- by the Court, but it was brought for auction in 2007 for an upset price of Rs.25,00,000/-. The 4th respondent herein, purchased the property for Rs.25,00,500/- on 25.08.2008. The sale was also confirmed on 31.10.2008.
5. After the confirmation of sale, on 14.08.2009, the entire amount due under the decree till that date, namely Rs.4,80,270/-, was deposited to the credit of the execution petition.
6. In the meantime, several other collateral proceedings in the form of Writ Petition in W.P.No.1476 of 2005, W.A.No.720 of 2008 and S.L.P.(C)No.3771 of 2013 took place. Certain directions were given by this Court in the writ petition. It is the plea of the judgment debtor that the directions given in the writ petition were not complied with.
7. Applications were filed before the Executing Court by the 4th respondent to take delivery of the property. The Court ordered symbolic delivery. An application was filed not to record the delivery and to recall the same. The delivery order was also recalled pending disposal of the execution applications. Finally, the matters came up before this Court in a revision in C.R.P.(MD)No.1840 of 2010. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Rajasuria directed the Executing Court to take up all the applications and dispose of the same within a fixed period. He recorded that the delivery had been taken, but directed the parties to maintain status quo.
8. Just prior to the revision, the Commercial Taxes Department filed an application challenging the auction. Similarly, M/s.ICICI Bank also filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the sale of the property owned by it in the auction sale held for the debt of the judgment debtor. Initially, the Executing Court set aside the sale in its entirety. Thereafter, in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the learned District Judge set aside the same insofar as the properties for which M/s.ICICI Bank had claimed title and upheld the sale with respect to the properties belonging to the judgment debtor. Al
