[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Mrs.Seetha Ram vs A.Gunasekar on 21 January, 2026
C.R.P. No. of 2440 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No.2440 of 2025 and CMP No.15229 of 2023
Mrs.Seetha Ram ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.A.Gunasekar
2.Leethiyal ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against the docket order passed on 10.07.2023 in Unnumbered EA …
of 2023 in EP No.7 of 2017 pending on the file of learned Additional District
Judge at Chengalpattu.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Parthasarathy
For Respondents : Mr.K.Ponraj
ORDER
Heard Mr.D.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner
and Mr.K.Ponraj, learned counsel for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. No. of 2440 of 2023
2. The revision is preferred challenging the dismissal of the
application filed by the petitioner to get herself impleaded in the Execution
Petition filed by the first respondent, against the second respondent.
3. Mr.D.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner states that
earlier, the revision petitioner had filed a suit against the second respondent
in the year 2000 in O.S.No.446 of 2000 and the said suit was decreed
exparte on 28.09.2007 and according to the learned counsel, the said decree
has become final and no application has been filed by the second respondent
to set aside the exparte decree or to challenge the same by way of preferring
first appeal. However, in order to defeat the decree, according to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent has entered into a sale
agreement with the first respondent collusively and a suit has been filed in
O.S.No.9 of 2015 and a decree came to be passed which has now been put to
execution, after the sale deed being registered in favour of the first
respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the second respondent
cannot convey effective and valid title to the first respondent having suffered
a decree in the suit filed by the petitioner. He would further state that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. No. of 2440 of 2023
admittedly the revision petitioner is in physical possession of the property
which is now sought to be recovered in the execution petition. He would
therefore state that the petitioner was a proper and necessary party and the
executing court ought not to have dismissed the impleading application.
5. Per contra, Mr.K.Ponraj, learned counsel for the respondents would
bring to my notice that the petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S,.No.520
of 2024, which is pending before the Principal District Court, Chengalpet
and that in the said suit, the defendants have also entered appearance and in
the said suit, the petitioner challenges the decree passed in favour of the first
respondent in O.S.No.9 of 2015. Therefore, he states that the petitioner is not
a necessary party in the execution petition and the executing court has
rightly dismissed the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of Civil
Procedure Code and therefore prays for dismissal of the revision.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side and perused the materials available onr ecord.
7. It is admitted fact that the petitioner now challenges the decree
passed in O.S.No.9 of 2015 which is now put to execution. In the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. No. of 2440 of 2023
execution petition alone, the petitioner sought to implead herself stating that
she is a proper and necessary party. The executing court has rightly found, in
my considered opinion, that the petitioner is not a proper and necessary party
in the execution petition. At the same time, the petitioner, who is admittedly
in physical possession of the property is entitled to obstruct to the execution
of the decree under Order XXI Rule 47 of Civil Procedure Code. No such
application has been admittedly filed as on date. However, on the contrary,
the petitioner has chosen to file a separate civil suit and he challenges the
judgment and the decree in O.S.No.9 of 2015.
8. In the light of the above, it would suffice to direct the learned
Principal District Judge, Chengalpet to dispose of O.S.No.520 of 2024 on or
before 31.07.2026.
9. Accordingly, the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpet is
directed to dispose of O.S.No.520 of 2024. In view of the liberty being
granted to the petitioner to canvass all her claims and the objections in the
civil suit filed by her, it is made clear that in future, it shall not be open to
the petitioner to file any application under Order XXI Rule 97 of Civil
Procedure Code,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. No. of 2440 of 2023
10. Till the disposal of O.S.No.520 of 2024, the execution proceedings
shall be kept in abeyance and shall be proceeded subject to the decision of
O.S.No.520 of 2024.
11. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
21.01.2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
sr
To
The Principal District Judge,
Chengalpet
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
C.R.P. No. of 2440 of 2023
P.B.BALAJI.,J
sr
21.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:54 pm )
