Madras High Court
Ravy vs Saravana Mudaliar on 17 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 09.10.2025 Order pronounced on : 17.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP.No.4902 of 2025
& CMP.No.24782 of 2025
1.Ravy
2.Kalpana ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Saravana Mudaliar
2.Dhananjayan
3.P.Saradambal @ Sadana
4.Maragathammal
5.Karthikeyan
6.Annapoorani
7.Pargunnen
8.Padmavathy
9.Barathen
10.Vissalatchy @ Vimala
11.Subramani
12.Amudha
13.Supriya
14.Sooriya ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the docket order dated 25.09.2025 made in
E.P.No.230 of 1998 in O.S.No.190 of 1971 on the file of the Principal
District Munsiff Court, Puducherry.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:14 pm )
For Petitioners : Mrs.P.V.Rajeswari
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja
ORDER
The revision petitioners are judgment debtors 5 and 8 in E.P.No.230
of 1998 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry. The
petitioners challenge the order dated 25.09.2025 in E.P.No.230 of 1998, in
and by which, the executing Court has ordered delivery in aid of the
execution of the decree in O.S.No.190 of 1971.
2.I have heard Mrs.P.V.Rajeswari, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja, learned counsel for the respondents.
3.Mrs.P.V.Rajeswari, learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the petitioners wanted to file an additional counter, pointing out
to the inexecutability of the decree, raising two substantial and material
grounds, namely, the identity of the property being in dispute and the decree
itself being a conditional decree, which has not been complied with by the
decree holder. Referring to these objections, the learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:14 pm )
petitioners would submit that the property has undergone change in survey
numbers and the property, which is sought to be executed against the
petitioners, is different from the property, for which the decree was passed
and therefore, these facts should be brought to light, for which purpose, the
petitioners sought for filing an additional counter.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would also point out to the
decree passed in O.S.No.190 of 1971 and state that the respondents/decree
holder was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- and without complying with
such payment, the respondents/decree holder was not entitled to put the
decree in execution. She would therefore state that serious prejudice would
be caused to the petitioners, if they are not permitted to file an additional
counter. She would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.
5.Per contra, Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja, learned counsel for the
respondents/decree holder would submit that the very same issues have been
agitated earlier and finality has been reached before this Court in
CRP.No.3062 of 2013, by order dated 24.04.2019 and the petitioners, only
in order to thwart the execution proceedings are attempting to re-agitate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:14 pm )
very same issues that have already been considered and rejected up to this
Court. As regards, the objection regarding the identity of the property, the
learned counsel for the respondents would state that the executing Court has
found from the report of the Ameen that the property which is the subject
matter of the decree is identifiable and therefore, there is no difficulty for
the Court to proceed with the execution. As regards the conditional decree,
the learned counsel for the respondents would invite my attention to the
order passed by this Court in CRP.No.3062 of 2013, where the very same
issue has been elaborately discussed and this Court has rejected the
contention of the judgment debtors, including the present revision
petitioners and therefore, the request to file additional counter is nothing but
an attempt to further protract the proceedings and defeat the decree in
favour of the respondents/decree holder.
6.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel on either side.
7.The order passed in CRP.No.3062 of 2013 dated 24.04.2019
assumes significance, in order to address the arguments of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:14 pm )
counsel for the petitioners. Firstly, it is seen from the cause title in the said
revision that it was filed by the judgment debtors by name, Mayavan and
Jayavalli. However, pending the revision, both of them died and their legal
representatives were brought on record. The present revision petitioners,
who were originally respondents 5 and 8 in the said revision, were
transposed as revision petitioners 1 and 3 in the present CRP and in the
CRP, the very same contentions regarding, the conditional decree not being
complied with and the property not being identifiable clearly, have been
taken and rejected. The order in the revision has become final. In fact, the
said revision petition itself was filed, challenging the dismissal of an
application under Section 47 of CPC. Therefore, when the very same issues
have been already agitated before the executing Court, by way of Section 47
application by the predecessors in interest of the present revision petitioners
and unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners themselves before this
Court in a revision, I do not see how permitting the petitioners to file an
additional counter, again referring to very same contentions, is going to be
of any avail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:14 pm )
8.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents,
the present attempt made by the petitioners clearly appears to be to protract
the execution proceedings. The decree has become final. The suit is of the
year 1971 and the EP itself is pending from 1998 and for all these years, the
judgment debtors, including the petitioners have successfully delayed the
execution of the decree and the decree holder enjoying the fruits of the
decree. I do not see any merit whatsoever in the arguments advanced on the
side of the petitioners.
9.In fact, even the executing Court has passed a detailed order,
finding that the Ameen report clearly identifies the four boundaries and
there is no difficulty in executing the warrant for delivery and that there is
also no necessity to file any additional counter. The executing Court has
also taken note of the fact that the decree holder is a senior citizen.
10.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions to all executing
Courts to give importance to pending execution matters and ensure that all
execution petitions are disposed of, within a period of six months.
Unfortunately, the petitioners have successfully dragged the execution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:14 pm )
petition close for more than 27 years already. There is absolutely no merit in
the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The executing
Court shall proceed with the execution petition, in accordance with law and
ensure disposal of the same, on or before 30.11.2025. There shall be no
order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
17.10.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
ata
To
The Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:14 pm )
P.B. BALAJI,J.
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
17.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:14 pm )
