Madras High Court
S.Rajendran vs J.Mercy on 24 February, 2025
C.R.P.(MD)No.3279 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.3279 of 2024
and C.M.P.(MD).No.18952 of 2024
S.Rajendran ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
J.Mercy ... Respondent/Respondent/Defendant
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the
Civil Procedure Code, to call for the records of the petition and order
passed in E.P.No.29 of 2023 in O.S.No.243 of 2021 on the file of the
Principal District Court, Karur, dated 22.08.2024 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian
For Respondents : No Appearance
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in
E.P.No.29 of 2023 in O.S.No.243 of 2021 on the file of the Principal
District Court, Karur, dated 22.08.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
2.The facts in brief:
Suit in O.S.No.243 of 2021 was filed by this revision petitioner
against the respondent herein seeking the relief of specific performance
based upon sale agreement entered between the respondent's husband
and the revision petitioner on 11.02.2021. The respondent appeared.
There was a compromise between the parties dated 09.03.2022. By the
joint compromise memo, the respondent agreed to execute sale deed in
favour of the revision petitioner within a month from 09.03.2022, after
receiving the balance amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. Obligation was imposed
upon the revision petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.40,00,000/-
within the time agreed. In the event of failure on the part of the
respondent to comply the compromise revision petitioner was granted
liberty to approach the Court for appropriate orders.
3.Award was passed on 09.03.2022 in L.A.No.77 of 2021.
4.Stating that the respondent herein has not coming forward to
receive the balance amount of Rs.40,00,000/- and execute the sale deed
as agreed, E.P.No.29 of 2023 was filed by the revision petitioner. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
respondent did not appear before the execution court and by the order
dated 27.04.2023 the execution of sale deed was ordered as per the draft
sale deed submitted by the revision petitioner.
5.Later, the matter was taken up on 31.07.2024 and the following
order was passed by the execution Court.
“Already this Court by its Order dated 24.04.2023,
order to execute the sale deed on behalf of the
Judgment debtor respondent/defendant. Further, the
petitioner have also paid stamp paper for the
execution of sale deed. At the time of execution of
sale deed it was found that the property described in
the schedule of execution petition are unapproved.
Therefore, this Court reopen the case suomotu and
clarification also heard on the side of the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner informed that the
petitioner have taken steps to regularize the Order
from the legal bodies from competent authorities for
approval of house site plots and the petitioner
sought for time. Further, sufficient time was granted
inspite of that the petitioner has not filed the
approval for the house site plots.
Therefore, to meet the ends of justice there
shall be a direction to the petitioner to file the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
approval for the plots in respect of the property
describe in the schedule of the execution on or
before 19.08.2024 failing which the petition shall
stand dismissed automatically. Call on 20.08.2024.”
6.With the above said direction the matter was posted to
20.08.2024. There was no representation on that date. Again called on
28.08.2024. Stating that condition is not complied, E.P was dismissed.
Against which, this revision is preferred.
7.Here also even though notice was served upon the respondent,
she did not choose to enter appearance. So her name is printed in the
cause list. The execution court says that since the plots under dispute are
not approved by the competent authorities as per the provisions of
District Municipalities or Town Panchayat and or Panchayat Act, the
Court cannot execute the sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner.
8.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that
for the purpose of approval, the competent person is only the owner to
make proper application, since the petitioner is not conferred with title by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
way of execution of sale deed, he cannot make out any application to the
concerned authorities for approving the lay out. Since the respondent has
not come forward even to comply the undertaking given by her before
the Lok Adalath, he cannot expect her to get the proper approval.
9.So according to him, the order passed by the Execution Court is
nothing but as misconception of law and facts. There can be no
impediment for execution of sale deed in respect of the unapproved plots.
After getting the sale deed, he can take appropriate action. So the order
passed by the execution Court must be set aside.
10.This Court is able to appreciate the grievance expressed by the
revision petitioner. As on date the revision petitioner is not the owner of
the property. The owner of the property as on date has not come forward
to get the approval, for which, this revision petitioner could not be
penalized. So it is for the revision petitioner to take appropriate steps in
the direction, after getting the sale deed executed. So the order passed by
the execution court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside. There
shall be a direction to the execution Court restore EP to its file, proceed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
with the execution proceedings in accordance with law. Let the process
be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
11.With the above said directions, this civil revision petition
stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
24.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Karur.
2.The Section Officer,
E.R.Section/V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
TM
24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
