Madras High Court
Jeyakumar vs Chandra Kumar on 24 March, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.914 & 915 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.914 & 915 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4893 & 4894 of 2025
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.914 of 2025
Jeyakumar ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent/
1st Defendant
Vs.
1.Chandra Kumar
2.Suyambukani Ammal
...Respondents/Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in E.A.No.41 of 2024 in
E.P.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.25 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif,
Sathankulam, dated 29-01-2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan
*****
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.915 of 2025
Jeyakumar ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent/
1st Defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:43 pm )
1/6
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.914 & 915 of 2025
Vs.
1.Chandra Kumar
2.Suyambukani Ammal
...Respondents/Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in E.A.No.40 of 2024 in
E.P.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.25 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif,
Sathankulam, dated 29-01-2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan
*****
COMMON ORDER
The first defendant in O.S.No.25 of 2015, on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Sathankulam, has filed the present revision petitions challenging
the dismissal of his stay petition in the execution proceeding and the dismissal
of an application filed under Section 47 of C.P.C.
2.The respondents herein as plaintiff have filed the above said suit for the
relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit was decreed on
18.08.2022. So far, no appeal has been filed and the decree has attained finality.
In order to execute the decree for recovery of possession, the plaintiffs have
filed E.P.No.2 of 2024. Pending such an application, the defendant has filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:43 pm )
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.914 & 915 of 2025
E.A.No.40 of 2024, under Section 47 of C.P.C. contending that the thatched
house that is mentioned in the suit schedule property, is not within the four
boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule and therefore, the decree is in-
executable.
3.The trial Court after considering the same, has proceeded to dismiss the
said application on the ground that except such pleadings and the arguments, no
document has been placed by the defendant. The trial Court has further found
that Amin has not filed any report before the Court, returning the warrant to the
effect that he is not in a position to deliver the suit schedule property to the
decree holder. On the above said observations, the trial Court has dismissed the
Section 47 application. The trial Court has proceeded to dismiss E.A.No.41 of
2024, on the ground that the judgment debtor has sought for stay of execution
proceedings only till the disposal of Section 47 application. Challenging these
two orders, the present revision petitions have been filed.
4.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners,
thatched house which is shown as the suit schedule property does not fall within
the four boundaries as mentioned in the suit schedule. Now the Amin has
marked a place which is different from that of the boundaries mentioned in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:43 pm )
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.914 & 915 of 2025
suit schedule and therefore, according to him, the decree is in-executable and
the Section 47 application should have been allowed.
5.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
6.A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendants reveal that the
defendants have not raised any plea in their written statement that thatched
house is not located within the four boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule.
No averments have been made in the written statement disputing the lie and
location of the property. Therefore, the said issue cannot be raised during
execution proceedings. The decree has been passed only in consonance with the
prayer sought for in the plaint.
7.In case, if the petitioners have grievances over the act of the Amin in
fixing the wrong boundaries, it is for them to file appropriate applications
before the trial Court. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any merits
in both the revision petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:43 pm )
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.914 & 915 of 2025
8.Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
24.03.2025
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
RJR
To
The learned District Munsif,
Sathankulam.
Copy to:-
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:43 pm )
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.914 & 915 of 2025
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.914 & 915 of 2025
24.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:43 pm )
