A.Durai vs P.Silas
2025 Latest Caselaw 8251 Mad

Madras High Court

A.Durai vs P.Silas on 31 October, 2025

                                                                   CRP No.4539 of 2025
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                             DATED: 31-10-2025
                                                 CORAM
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

                                                     CRP No.4539 of 2025
                                       and CMP Nos.25769 of 2025 23074 of 2025

                  A.Durai                                                                  .. Petitioner


                                                                  Vs

                  P.Silas                                                                  .. Respondent


                            Revision filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the
                  fair and final order passed in E.P.No.34 of 2023 in O.S.No.521 of 2007 on
                  the file of I Additional District Munsif, Erode dated 18.08.2025 and set aside
                  the same.

                                    For Petitioner       : Mr.A.Sundara Vadhanan

                                    For Respondent       : Mr.K.G.Vasudevan

                                                             ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for

the respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:03 pm )

2. The revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed in

E,P.No.34 of 2023 dated 18.08.2025. The primordial contention of the

revision petitioner/judgment debtor is that there is no decree for delivery of

possession, however, the respondent/decree holder has sought for recovery

of possession in the execution petition. He would take me through the decree

passed in the suit as well as the Execution petition filed by the

respondent/decree holder.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder would

submit that decree holder is only attempting to execute the decree passed by

the trial court and he is not seeking any exclusive possession.

4. I find from the decree that clause -2 provides for specific

obstruction made by the revision petitioner to be removed to enable the

passage to be enjoyed commonly by both the parties.

5. It is also brought to my notice by the respondent/decree holder that

the decree came upto this court and was confirmed in S.A.No.523/2018 dated

21.11.2022. I do not find how the execution petition cannot be maintained

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:03 pm ) since the decree holder has filed execution petition only in order to execute

the portion of the decree directing mandatory injunction and merely because

there is a mention of joint possession after removing the obstruction, does

not amount to any claim by the respondent/decree holder for exclusive

possession. In any event, to give a quietus, the Executing Court shall appoint

an Advocate Commissioner at the cost of the revision petitioner under whose

supervision the court bailiff, in the presence of the parties, shall give effect

to clause-2 of the decree.

6. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is disposed

of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

31-10-2025

To The I Additional District Munsif, Erode

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:03 pm ) P.B.BALAJI.,J

sr

31.10.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:03 pm )