Madras High Court
Ragounadin vs Ramakrishnan on 6 June, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP NPD.No.1731 of 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 06.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRP [NPD] No.1731 of 2025 & CMP.No.9969 of 2025
Ragounadin . . . Petitioner
Versus
1. Ramakrishnan
2. Pannerselvam
3. Cinnapoosanam . . . Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to allow
the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Docket Order dated 06.03.2025
passed in E.A.SR.No.1791 of 2025 in E.P.No.193 of 1996 in O.S.No.203 of
1995 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge at Puducherry.
For petitioner : Mr.T.S.Baskaran
Page 1 / 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:04 pm )
CRP NPD.No.1731 of 2025
ORDER
Challenge has been made to the returning of the application filed by the
revision petitioner to implead himself in the Execution Petition in E.P.No.193
of 1996, in the present Civil Revision Petition.
2. Since the application filed by the petitioner itself has been returned
and not numbered by the Execution Court, this Court is of the view that no
notice is required to other side.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition is as follows :
The first respondent/decree holder has filed a suit for recovery of money
against two defendants. The mother of the revision petitioner was arrayed as
the second defendant in the suit. The suit came to be decreed for a sum of
Rs.2 lakhs together interest by a judgment and decree dated 23.09.1996. The
appeal filed challenging the decree and judgment has also been dismissed as
the steps have not been taken. Therefore, it appears that the said decree and
judgment had reached its finality. The second defendant died on 01.10.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:04 pm )
Now it appears that the Execution Petition has been filed to realize the decree
amount and the decree amount has not been satisfied till date. An Order of
attachment has been passed as against the immovable property of the revision
petitioner. The revision petitioner has also filed an application to raise the
attachment in E.A.No.30 of 2019 and the said application has been dismissed
on 24.10.2019. The fact remains that in the Execution Petition, after the death
of the second judgment debtor, her legal representatives have not been
impleaded by the decree holder. At this stage, an application has been taken
out by the legal representative of the second judgment debtor to implead
himself in the Execution Petition. The said application has been returned,
which has been challenged in the present revision petition.
4. I have perused entire materials. At the outset, this Court is of the
view that the Order of the trial Court returning the application filed by the
petitioner to implead himself in the Execution Petition cannot be sustained in
the eye of law. It is relevant to note that where the judgment debtor died
before the decree amount is fully satisfied, the decree holder may enforce the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:04 pm )
decree against the legal representative of the judgment debtor to satisfy the
decree amount. Such legal representative is normally liable only to the extent
of the property of the deceased, which has come to his possession. These facts
can be gathered only when the legal representatives of the judgment debtors
are brought on record. Therefore, without impleading the legal representatives
of the judgment debtor, as a matter of fact, the property of the judgment debtor
cannot be brought for sale. The legal representatives of the judgment debtor
have to impleaded. Thereafter, the Executive Court can decide as to what
extent the legal representatives are liable. These facts have to be decided only
after the legal representatives of the judgment debtor are brought on record.
Therefore, the Order impugned is liable to be set aside.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Order of
the Executing Court dated 06.03.2025 is set aside. The application filed by the
revision petitioner to implead himself in the Execution Petition is allowed.
The Executing Court shall decide the main Execution Petition and proceed for
sale of the property after hearing the revision petitioner. The Execution Court
shall dispose of the Execution Petition expeditiously, preferably within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:04 pm )
period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.06.2025
Note : The registry is directed to return the original
affidavit and the Order passed in this regard
to the petitioner.
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
vrc
To,
The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:04 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
06.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:04 pm )
