Madras High Court
Unknown vs Alamelu Ammal (Deceased) on 1 April, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
C.R.P.No.1339 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
C.R.P.No.1339 of 2025
SUBRAMANIAN (DECEASED)
RAJAMBAL (DECEASED)
1. Sundarrajan
S/o. Subramanian Sonanchavadi Village, Cuddalore Dist.
2. Murugan
S/o. Subramanian Sonanchavadi Village, Cuddalore Dist.
3. Meenakshi
W/o. Velmurugan Door No. 15, Rajaji Street, Panruti
4. Arumugam
S/o. Subramanian Door No. 15, Rajaji Street, Panruti
5. Lakshmi
W/o. Selvaraj Vadamalai Ramasamy Chetty Street, Panruti
Venkatesan (Deceased)
6. Sarveswari
D/o. Subramanian Door No. 15, Rajaji Street, Panruti
7. Govindarajan
S/o. Subramanian Door No. 15, Rajaji Street, Panruti
8. Vasanthi
W/o. Balakrishnan Sethangudi, Mayiladuthurai
9. Ezhilarasi
W/o. Venkatesan No.2, Saraswathi Illam, V.G.P. Extension
Nagar, Kondur, Cuddalore.
1 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:58:10 pm )
C.R.P.No.1339 of 2025
10. Vanisri
D/o. Venkatesan No.2, Saraswathi Illam, V.G.P. Extension Nagar,
Kondur, Cuddalore.
11. Abiramisri
D/o. Venkatesan No.2, Saraswathi Illam, V.G.P. Extension Nagar,
Kondur, Cuddalore.
... Petitioners
Vs
Alamelu Ammal (Deceased)
Subramanian (Deceased)
Santhabai (Deceased)
1. Kotteswaran
S/o. Kothandapani Chettiar,
2.Govardhan
S/o. Kothandapani Chettiar,
3.Govindasamy
S/o. Kothandapani Chettiar,
4.Gobi
S/o. Kothandapani Chettiar,
5.Gokilam
D/o. Kothandapani Chettiar,
6.Gomathi
D/o. Kothandapani Chettiar,
7.Krishnaveni Ammal
W/o. Gopalsamy Chettiar
8.Kousalya (Deceased)
9.Uma
D/o Subramanian
10.Jaiganesh
S/o Subramanian ... Respondents
2 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:58:10 pm )
C.R.P.No.1339 of 2025
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, pleased to direct the District Munsif Court, Panruti to dispose the E.P.No.49
of 2006 within the period fixed by this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Umapathy
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking for a
direction to the learned District Munsif, Panruti, to dispose E.P.No.49 of 2006 in
O.S.No.233 of 1981 within a specified time.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioners and the
respondents are the legal heirs of the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively in
O.S.No.233 of 1981. The suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants before
the Sub-Ordinate Court, Cuddalore in O.S.No.233 of 1981 seeking for the relief of
specific performance was decreed on 07.08.1984. The second appeal filed before
this Court in S.A.No.1534 of 1984 was disposed on 16.02.2001. Thereafter, the
execution petition filed by the petitioners before the District Munsif Court, Panruti
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:58:10 pm )
was numbered in the year 2006. However, till date, there is no progress in the
execution petition and the executing Court has been repeatedly adjourning the
matter, thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the suit filed
by the plaintiffs was decreed on 07.08.1984 and the execution petition filed by the
legal heirs of the plaintiffs was numbered in the year 2006, however, the matter is
still pending before the Executing Court. He further submitted that even after
getting the decree in their favour, the petitioners are unable to enjoy the fruits of
the decree since 1984. Hence, he seeks for a direction to the executing Court to
dispose the Execution Petition within a specified time frame.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
perused the materials available on record, this Court is able to see that despite the
suit being decreed in the year 1984, the Execution Petition filed by the petitioners
in E.P.No.49 of 2006 is still pending without any progress.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:58:10 pm )
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Periyammal (Dead) through Lrs & Ors vs.
V.Rajamani & Anr Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 329, referring to the earlier
decisions made in Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others,
reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 and Bhoj Raj Garg vs.Goyal Education and Welfare
Society & Ors, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 976, has held that the executing
Courts must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date
of filing. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the execution petitions shall
be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise
the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its
administrative side.
6. The paragraphs concerning the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the above decision are extracted hereunder :-
“72. Before we close this matter, we firmly believe that we
should say something as regards the long and inordinate delay at the
end of the Executing Courts across the country in deciding execution
petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:58:10 pm )
73. It is worthwhile to revisit the observations in Rahul S.
Shah (supra) wherein this Court has provided guidelines and
directions for conduct of execution proceedings. The relevant portion
of the said judgment is reproduced below:
“42. All courts dealing with suits and execution
proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below
mentioned directions:
42.1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court
must examine the parties to the suit under Order 10 in
relation to third-party interest and further exercise the
power under Order 11 Rule 14 asking parties to disclose
and produce documents, upon oath, which are in
possession of the parties including declaration
pertaining to third-party interest in such properties.
42.2. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not
in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication
before the court, the court may appoint Commissioner to
assess the accurate description and status of the
property.
42.3. After examination of parties under Order 10 or
production of documents under Order 11 or receipt of
Commission report, the court must add all necessary or
proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of
action in the same suit.
42.4. Under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, a Court Receiver can
be appointed to monitor the status of the property in
question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the
matter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:58:10 pm )
42.5. The court must, before passing the decree,
pertaining to delivery of possession of a property
ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only
contain clear description of the property but also
having regard to the status of the property.
42.6. In a money suit, the court must invariably resort to
Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of
decree for payment of money on oral application.
42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of
issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his
assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable
in a suit. The court may further, at any stage, in
appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using
powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to
ensure satisfaction of any decree.
42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section
47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on an
application of third party claiming rights in a
mechanical manner. Further, the court should refrain
from entertaining any such application(s) that has
already been considered by the court while
adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue
which otherwise could have been raised and
determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence
was exercised by the applicant.
42.9. The court should allow taking of evidence during
the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare
cases where the question of fact could not be decided by
resorting to any other expeditious method like
appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic
materials including photographs or video with affidavits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:58:10 pm )
42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it
finds the objection or resistance or claim to be
frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98
of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in
accordance with Section 35-A.
42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the term “… in name of
the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for
him or on his behalf” should be read liberally to
incorporate any other person from whom he may have
the ability to derive share, profit or property.
42.12. The executing court must dispose of the
execution proceedings within six months from the date
of filing, which may be extended only by recording
reasons in writing for such delay.
42.13. The executing court may on satisfaction of the
fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without
police assistance, direct the police station concerned to
provide police assistance to such officials who are
working towards execution of the decree. Further, in
case an offence against the public servant while
discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the
court, the same must be dealt with stringently in
accordance with law.
42.14. The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals
and ensure continuous training through appropriate
mediums to the court personnel/staff executing the
warrants, carrying out attachment and sale and any
other official duties for executing orders issued by the
executing courts.” (Emphasis supplied)
74. The mandatory direction contained in Para 42.12 of Rahul
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:58:10 pm )
S. Shah (supra) requiring the execution proceedings to be completed
within six months from the date of filing, has been reiterated by this
Court in its order in Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare
Society & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19654 of 2022.
75. In view of the aforesaid, we direct all the High Courts
across the country to call for the necessary information from their
respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution
petitions. Once the data is collected by each of the High Courts, the
High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative
order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to
ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be
decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail
otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to
the High Court on its administrative side. Once the entire data along
with the figures of pendency and disposal thereafter, is collected by
all the High Courts, the same shall be forwarded to the Registry of
this Court with individual reports.''
7. In view of the above settled position of law and keeping in mind the
pendency of the EP from the year 2006, this Civil Revision Petition stands
allowed. Accordingly, the learned District Munsif, Panruti, is directed to dispose
the Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.49 of 2006 in O.S.No.233 of 1981, in
accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:58:10 pm )
referred above and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
01.04.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ham
To
1. The District Munsif, Panruti.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:58:10 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
ham
01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:58:10 pm )
