[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Wahab Ali Khan vs A.S.Malaisamy on 20 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP.No.4901 of 2025
& CMP.No.24761 of 2025
1.Wahab Ali Khan
2.Naaz Parveen ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.A.S.Malaisamy
2.S.P.Velusamy
S.Palanisamy (Died)
S.P.Selvakumar (Died)
3.Tamilarasi
4.Anbukkarasan ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside
the decree and order passed by the I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode,
dated 10.07.2025 in unnumbered E.A.No.___ of 2024 in E.P.No.152 of
2008.
For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Kajanavas
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan for R1
No appearance for RR2 to 4
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed to set aside the decree and order
passed by the I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode, dated 10.07.2025 in
unnumbered E.A.No.___ of 2024 in E.P.No.152 of 2008.
2.I have heard Mr.Y.Kajanavas, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners and Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
3.The revision petitioners suffered a decree for specific performance
which was filed by the 1st respondent. The 1st petitioner contested the suit,
stating that the 1st respondent/plaintiff is only a tenant under him and that at
no point of time, an agreement of sale was entered into or it was agreed by
the 1st petitioner to sell the property under the occupation of the 1 st
respondent by entering into any agreement of sale.
4.However, the trial Court found the 1st respondent being entitled to
the discretionary relief of specific performance. The defence taken in the
suit was also considered by the trial Court, before passing the decree. The
decree has admittedly become final. When the decree was put in execution,
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
the petitioners have moved an application under Section 47. The 1 st
petitioner is the judgment debtor. The 2 nd petitioner is the wife of the 1 st
petitioner. The 2nd petitioner is admittedly not a party to the suit or the
execution petition also. I do not see how the 2 nd petitioner can maintain an
application under Section 47 of CPC.
5.In any event, I have gone through the order passed by the executing
Court and the executing Court has rightly found that the petitioners are not
entitled to question the executalibility of the decree which has become final.
I do not see any infirmity in the findings arrived at by the learned I
Additional Sub-Judge, Erode.
6.The only grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that
the petition was dismissed even at the unnumbered stage and therefore, a
fair opportunity ought to be given to the petitioners. However, on going
through the detailed order passed by the executing Court, I am able to see
that all the contentions of the petitioners have been addressed by a well
reasoned order. I do not see that the said order requires interference in
revision.
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
7.Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioners also
brought to my notice that there is an appeal filed against the decree for
specific performance and the same is pending in A.S.CFR.No.9022 of 2025
at the condone delay stage, before the District Court, Erode and he would
therefore seek for limited protection, at least till such time, the condone
delay application is disposed of, so that the petitioner will have one more
reasonable opportunity to challenge the decree for specific performance. In
the light of the fact that an appeal has been preferred, though belatedly and
the same is being contested by the 1 st respondent/decree holder, I am
inclined to pass the following order:
8.As already discussed, there is no merit in the revision petition. The
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order passed in
E.A.CFR.No.12346 of 2025 dated 10.07.2025 is confirmed. However, the
proceedings in the execution petition shall be kept in abeyance for a period
of five weeks. The District Court, Erode shall dispose of the above
mentioned A.S.CFR.No.9022 of 2025, within a period of four weeks and in
the event of the delay being condoned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
immediately move an urgent interim application seeking stay of the
execution proceedings pending. However, if no interim stay is granted
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
within the said period of five weeks, the executing Court shall proceed with
the EP. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.01.2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
ata
Note : Issue order copy on 23.01.2026.
To
1.The I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.
2.The District Court, Erode.
P.B. BALAJI,J.
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
20.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 03:39:07 pm )
