Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8637 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 November, 2025
CRP NO. 5725 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP NO. 5725 of 2025 and CMP No.28500 of 2025
R. Ashok Petitioner
Vs
V.Selvaraj Respondent
Revision filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside
the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Sub Judge, Pollachi in
I.A.No.4 of 2024 in E.P.No.155 of 2009 in O.S.No59 of 2004.
For Petitioner: Ms.V.S.Usharani
For Respondent: Mr.R.Kannan
ORDER
The petitioner is the son of the judgment debtor who has suffered a
decree for Specific Performance in O.S.No.59 of 2024.
2. The suit came to be decreed even in August 2009 when the father of
the petitioner was very much alive. Subsequently, the respondent has also
instituted execution proceedings in the year 2010 and the father of the
petitioner has also contested the execution petition. In the meantime, pending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:27 pm ) the execution petition, petitioner's father died and the decree holder has taken
out application to implead the legal representatives of the deceased father and
the application has been allowed. The petitioners sought for time to gather
particulars and file a counter since they were not parties to the suit and
according to them, they were under dark about the agreement entered into by
their father. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has a share in the
property which is an ancestral property.
3. Mr.Kannan, learned counsel for the caveator would submit that the
petitioner was well aware of the decree and only in order to defeat the decree,
a suit for partition has been filed alleging that the property is a joint family
property and obtained an exparte decree only to scuttle the rights of the
decree holder.
4. I find from the impugned order that the Executing Court has found
that the petitioner is attempting to protract the proceedings. There is no delay
in defending the execution proceedings and the petitioner has only sought for
time to file a counter. The excuse is justifiable since admittedly they are not
parties to the agreement of sale in a suit for specific performance and only
pending execution proceedings, they have been impleaded in the year 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:27 pm )
5. In the light of the above, I am inclined to grant indulgence to the
petitioner to contest the execution proceedings on merits. The order in
I.A.No.4 of 2024 ,which has also been filed in time, is set aside. It is noticed
that counter has been filed along with E.A.No.4 of 2024.
6. In the light of the above, the executing court shall decide the
execution petition in E.P.No.155 of 2009 on merits and in accordance with
law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
7. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14-11-2025
Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order sr
To The Sub Judge, Pollachi
P.B.BALAJI.,J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:27 pm ) sr
CRP NO. 5725 of 2025
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:27 pm )
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!