Madras High Court
Santhi vs Pazhanivelu on 25 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 17.10.2025 Order pronounced on : 25.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP.No.5113 of 2025
& CMP.No.25755 of 2025
1.Santhi
2.Radhakrishnan
3.Sasikala
4.Sathish ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Pazhanivelu
Givindammal (Died)
Lourdusamy (Died)
2.Franceica Marie
3.Chinnathambie
4.Raj @ Pushparaj
5.Yesu @ Puhazhendi
6.Sankar @ Antonisamy
7.Arul Prakasa Marie
9.Sekar
10.Kanagavalli
11.Duraikannou
12.Elizabeth Marie
13.Josephine
14.Steephen Arokiyaraj ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside
the order and decreetal order passed in E.A.No.2 of 2021 in E.P.No.181 of
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm )
1998 on the file of the Special Officer cum Additional Sub-Judge,
Pondicherry dated 10.10.2025.
For Petitioners : Mr.Vasanthakumar
for Mr.K.S.Mohandass
For Respondents : Mr.R.Subramaniam
for Mr.V.V.Sairam
ORDER
The judgment debtors 13 to 16 in E.P.No.181 of 1998, on the file of
the Special Officer cum Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry, are the revision
petitioners.
2.I have heard Mr.Vasanthakumar for Mr.K.S Mohandas, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Subramaniam for Mr.V.V.Sairam,
learned counsel for the respondents.
3.Mr.Vasanthakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners
would submit that the first respondent /decree holder has obtained a decree
in O.S.No.154 of 1985 and though the matters had attained finality, in
A.S.No.92 of 1991, there was a specific order passed by the learned
Additional Sub-Judge Puducherry, on 03.03.2011 in E.A.No.90 of 2008,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm )
where the first respondent/ decree holder sought for an amendment of the
schedule in the execution petition.
4.Inviting my attention to paragraph No.7 of the said order,
Mr.Vasanthakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners states that though the
amendment was ordered as prayed for, the Court had specifically directed
the first respondent to take necessary steps to carry out the amendment, not
only in the E.P schedule, but also to take proper steps for amending the
decree in O.S.No. 154 of 1985, as well as decree in A.S.No.92 of 1991 and
other connected documents. Mr.Vasanthakumar, learned counsel would
state that though the amendment was carried out only in the execution
petition, the necessary amendments in the decree in the suit and the first
appeal were never carried out, and therefore rightly, the petitioners moved
E.A.No.2 of 2021 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
contending that the decree is inexecutable. The learned counsel would
therefore state that when admittedly, the executing Court had required the
decree holder to amend the decree in the suit and in the first appeal and
without doing so, it is not open to the first respondent to proceed with the
execution petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm )
5.Per contra, Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would submit that the order on which the reliance is placed on
by the counsel for the petitioner i.e., the order dated 03.03.2011 was
challenged before this Court in CRP.(NPD).Nos.2946 & 2947 of 2011 by
the revision petitioners themselves and the said revisions came to be
dismissed, and that subsequently, the first respondent / decree holder took
out an application in E.A.No.12 of 2024 for appointment of an Advocate
Commissioner. Though the executing Court dismissed the application, the
same was challenged in CRP.No.2989 of 2024, and this Court allowed the
revision and directed appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and also to
expedite the execution proceedings and ensure that the same is disposed of
within a period of three months.
6.It is therefore the contention of Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel
for the respondents that the very same issues have been agitated repeatedly
and the present application is nothing but an attempt to protract the
proceedings further and defeat the decree passed in favour of the first
respondent. He would therefore pray for the revision being dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm )
7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the records.
8.No doubt, as contended by Mr.Vasanthakumar, the learned
Additional Sub-Judge, Puducherry, while allowing the amendment
application filed by the first respondent / decree holder in E.A.No. 90 of
2008, had required the decree in the suit as well as the first appeal also to be
suitably amended. The said order was brought up to this Court by the
revision petitioners and this Court, while dismissing the said revision has
held that the Cadastre number and RS number were interchanged by
inadvertence and the same does not change the actual description of the
properties.
9.This Court also found that there is no dispute with regard to the
identity of the property as well and parties have been locking horns before
various Courts right from 1985 onwards and when there is no discrepancy
with regard to the four boundaries and the correction of a mistake that had
arisen due to interchange of Cadastre number and RS number does not go to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm )
the root of the matter and the objections of the revision petitioners were
overruled.
10.In fact, even in the said revision, the petitioners took the very same
contentions that are now taken in the present revision, that the decree in the
suit and the appeal suit have not been amended. However, this Court did not
find merit in the said contentions and ultimately dismissed the revision. I am
also informed that the said order was taken up by way of a Special Leave
Petition to the Honourable Supreme Court and the SLP was also dismissed.
11.In the order passed by this Court in CRP.No.2989 of 2024, which
was filed at the instance of the first respondent / decree holder, challenging
the dismissal of the application for appointment of an Advocate
Commissioner as well, I find that after going through the entire records and
extracting the order passed in the earlier revision petitions in the year 2011,
this Court finding that the SLP(Civil)Nos.332 and 333 of 2011 were also
dismissed on 19.07.2016, gave a finding that the very application under
Section 47 of CPC, raising objections regarding description of the property
had already been unsuccessfully raised up to the Honourable Supreme Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm )
and the same cannot be re-agitated once again. In fact, this Court set aside
the dismissal of the Advocate Commissioner application and directed
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to aid the execution of the
decree.
12.In the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court, not once, but
twice the very same objections regarding the mistake in the survey number
have been elaborately argued and rejected. Once again, the petitioners are
now agitating the very same ground that the property has not been properly
described and are trying to thwart the execution process. The executing
Court has rightly considered the chequered history that the case has gone
through and found that the Section 47 application is clearly re-litigation of
issues that have already attained finality. I do not find any illegality or
perversity in the findings arrived at by the executing Court in dismissing the
Section 47 petition.
13.This Court, while disposing of CRP.No.2989 of 2024, directed the
executing Court to expedite the execution proceedings in E.P.No.181 of
1998 and dispose of the same within a period of three months. Despite the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm )
direction of this Court, in view of the application filed by the revision
petitioners, the execution of the decree has been further delayed. In fact,
pursuant to this order in the revision, an Advocate Commissioner has also
been appointed, who has taken the assistance of a Surveyor and has
identified the property, which is sought to be executed as ABCD and
therefore, the petitioners cannot continue to harp on a technical objection
that the correct survey number does not find place in the decree and the
appeal suit.
14.It is a clear attempt on the part of the revision petitioners to
somehow or the other protract the execution proceedings and continue to be
in possession of the subject property. The petitioners have failed not once,
but thrice in stalling the execution proceedings. In the light of the above, I
am inclined to direct the petitioners to hand over possession of the portion
that has been marked as ABCD in the Advocate Commissioner's report
which was filed pursuant to the orders passed in CRP.No.2989 of 2024 by
order dated 12.11.2024. The petitioners shall vacate and hand over vacant
possession by 21.11.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm )
15.Post the matter on 24.11.2025 under the caption 'for reporting
compliance'.
25.10.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
ata
To
The Special Officer cum Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm )
P.B. BALAJI,J.
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
25.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:23 pm )
