Madras High Court
Mrs.Seethalakshmi vs Mrs.Thangamma Chinnarajah on 2 January, 2023
C.R.P.No.4298 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.P.No.4298 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.22563 of 2022
M.Sagadevan (deceased)
1.Mrs.Seethalakshmi
2.Mr.S.Narendran
3.Ms.Pradeepa ... Petitioners
Vs.
K.Chinnarajah (deceased)
1.Mrs.Thangamma Chinnarajah
2.Ms.S.Prakashiny Baburaj ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, praying to set aside the order dated 20.09.2022 passed in
E.A.No.3 of 2022 in E.P.No.73 of 2010 in O.S.No.735 of 2007 on the file of
the Hon'ble Principal District Munsif, Alandur.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Tamilavel
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4298 of 2022
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated
20.09.2022 passed in E.A.No.3 of 2022 in E.P.No.73 of 2010 in
O.S.No.735 of 2007 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District Munsif,
Alandur.
2. The Revision petitioners are the judgment debtors Nos.2 to
4/defendants in the suit. The suit was instituted for Declaration and
Recovery of Possession and it was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, who in
turn, filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.73 of 2010. The Execution Petition
was allowed by the trial Court. The respondents herein filed E.A.No.3 of
2022 under Section 50 and Section 151 of C.P.C to bring the legal heirs of
the deceased Decree Holder Mr.Chinnarajah on record. Accordingly, the
respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a petition for impleading themselves as
legal heirs of the decree holder for the purpose of execution of the decree
already passed by the trial Court. The revision petitioners herein raised an
objection in the said petitions that the deceased decree holder has 4 legal
heirs and the petition was filed only by the 2 legal heirs and therefore, the
petition is liable to be rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4298 of 2022
3. The trial Court considered the objections raised by the revision
petitioners herein and made a finding that under Order 21 Rule 15 of C.P.C.,
the respondents 1 and 2 are having power to execute decree and accordingly,
allowed the petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2. As per Order 21 Rule
15 of C.P.C., “if there is any joint decree, any one of the person may apply
for execution for benefit of them all or also apply any one where any of them
has died, for the benefit of the survivors and the legal representatives of the
deceased.”
4. Accordingly, the respondents 1 and 2 have shown sufficient cause
to grant permission as per sub-clause 2 of Rule 15 under Order 21 of C.P.C.,
the petitioners have stated in their petition that other two legal heirs of the
deceased decree holder are permanent resident of Canada and therefore, the
respondents 1 and 2 have to file the petition for the purpose of execution of
the decree already passed by the trial Court. When the Court found that the
respondents 1 and 2 have shown sufficient cause for the purpose of
impleading themselves to execute the decree, this Court do not find any
infirmity since it is permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4298 of 2022
5. The objections raised by the revision petitioners herein are
untenable, in view of the reason that the respondents 1 and 2 have shown
sufficient cause for not impleading the other two legal heirs, who are the
permanent resident of Canada. Thus, the present Revision Petition is filed
only to delay the Execution Proceedings, which cannot be appreciated by
this Court.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.01.2023
kak
Index : Yes
Speaking order:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
To
The Principal District Munsif,
Alandur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4298 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.R.P.No.4298 of 2022
02.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
