Execution obstruction dispute: the decree-holder revision petitioner challenged restoration of a judgment debtor's Order XXI Rule 97/98 application based on a post-decree five-year lease deed. The court disposed the revision directing the execution court to decide within two months after cross-examination of the obstructor.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.[NPD].No.2445 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 19.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.[NPD].No.2445 of 2024 & CMP.No.12796 of 2024
Arulmigu Sridevi Adhi Parasakthi Manakeshwari Amman Arutpani Arakattalai Rep. by its Secretary D.Prakasam No.50/2, Kenedy Square Cross Street, KennedySquare, Sembium, Chennai – 600 011.
. . . Petitioner
Versus
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the docket Order passed on 15.03.2024 in E.A.No.8 of 2023 in E.A.No.1 of 2022 in E.P.No.3045 of 2021 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai by allowing the Revision.
Page 1 / 5
C.R.P.[NPD].No.2445 of 2024
For petitioner : Ms.Srividhya Aravindan For respondents : Mr.K.Venkatesan – R1 Mr.R.Thangamani – R2
O R D E R
Challenge has been made against the Order of the trial Court in allowing the application filed to restore the application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 of Code of Civil Procedure in E.A.No.1 of 2022 in E.P.No.3045 of 2021.
Page 2 / 5
C.R.P.[NPD].No.2445 of 2024
of 2021. However, the said application has also been dismissed. When the execution petition has been filed for delivery of possession, at this stage, an application under Order XXI Rule 97 and 98 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the second respondent, who is none other than the judgment debtor. He claims a right over the property on the basis of a tenancy agreement said to have been executed by the judgment debtor on 14.05.2021, by way of an unregistered lease deed for a period of five years. Based on the said lease deed, the above application has been taken out.
Order of the trial Court allowing the application without any application filed to condone delay is not legal, this Court is of the view that in order to avoid technical objections, while recording delivery under Order XXI Rule 34 and 35 of Code of Civil Procedure, the so called obstructor should be given an opportunity. This Court also prima facie finds that the very agreement relied upon by the petitioner is not admissible in evidence, since the so called lease exceeds five years. That apart, the same came into existence after the decree
Page 3 / 5
C.R.P.[NPD].No.2445 of 2024
reached its finality. It is also stated that the second appeal has also been filed and the same has also been dismissed.
of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.11.2024
Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order
vrc
Page 4 / 5
C.R.P.[NPD].No.2445 of 2024
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
C.R.P.[NPD].No.2445 of 2024
19.11.2024
Page 5 / 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's order restoring an Order XXI Rule 97/98 objection application by the judgment debtor claiming tenancy should stand.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Arulmigu Sridevi Adhi Parasakthi Manakeshwari Amman Arutpani Arakattalai Rep. by its Secretary D.Prakasam
Ravi
R.Seran Proprietor RRS Travels
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
