Madras High Court
C.Sivapakkiyam vs Chinnaiyan on 17 June, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.R.P.(MD)No.619 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.R.P.(MD)No.619 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3438 of 2021
1.C.Sivapakkiyam
2.C.Selvaraj
3.C.Malliga
4.N.Mhamuni
5.M.Sumithra ...Petitioners
Vs.
1.Chinnaiyan
2.P.Periyammal
3.P.Periyasamy ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, praying to allow this Civil Revision Petition setting aside the order dated
08.08.2019 made in E.P.No.6 of 2010 in O.S.No.117 of 2004, on the file of the
Additional District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh
For Respondents 1&2 : No appearance
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:01:23 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)No.619 of 2021
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 08.08.2019
made in E.P.No.6 of 2010 in O.S.No.117 of 2004, on the file of the Additional
District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.
2.The case of the petitioners is that one Palaniandi filed a suit for specific
performance in O.S.No.117 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District
Munsif Court, Lalgudi, to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in
favour of the plaintiff, after receiving the balance sale consideration within the
time stipulated by the trial Court and the said suit was decreed ex-parte as
against one Chinnappan and Chinnaian. These petitioners are legal heirs of
Chinnappan. The suit was decreed in favour of Palaniandi on 16.11.2009. For
execution of the judgment and decree, the said Palaniandi filed E.P.No.6 of
2010 and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the sale deed was executed on
08.08.2019. Challenging a docket order dated 08.08.2000, this Civil Revision
Petition is filed.
3.However, learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that
pursuant to the sale deed, delivery was also ordered in favour of the respondents
and the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:01:23 pm )
4.Learned Counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the facts submitted
by the respondents. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that they were
not impleaded in the suit and they were impleaded only in the E.P. proceedings
and E.P. was also held against the petitioners and in the EP proceedings,
without issuing notice in the EP proceedings. The grievance of the petitioners is
that without issuing notice, sale deed being executed by the Court in favour of
the respondents is unsustainable, for the simple reason that the petitioners were
not arrayed as a party and though they were impleaded in the EP, no notice was
issued. Accordingly, prays for allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
5.The facts in the case are not in dispute. The fact remains that a specific
performance suit was filed by one Palaniandi in the year 2004, against the
petitioner's father Chinnappan, seeking to execute the sale deed by receiving the
balance sale consideration. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff
when the petitioners' father was alive. Thereafter, E.P. was filed in the year
2010 and E.P. was ordered on 08.08.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner's father
died only on 27.06.2012. It appears that the entire sale consideration was paid
in the year 2009 itself. However, the petitioners slept over the matter and the
petitioners' father also did not take effective steps to challenge the judgment and
decree in the suit. Subsequent to the sale deed, delivery was ordered. Now, at
this stage, the petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition, challenging a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:01:23 pm )
docket order. The petitioners did not take steps either to set aside the judgment
and decree in the suit or the order in the E.P. Proceedings. Challenging a docket
order is impermissible unless the judgment and decree in the suit or the E.P.
order is set aside, since a consequential order cannot be challenged. Hence, this
Court does not find any merit in the present Civil Revision Petition.
6.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
17.06.2025
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:01:23 pm )
To
1.The Additional District Munsif Court,
Lalgudi.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:01:23 pm )
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
MR
17.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:01:23 pm )
