Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Chinnappillai (Deceased) Vs Chellammal — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
Chinnappillai (Deceased) Vs ChellammalChinnappillai (Deceased) v. Chellammal

Dismissed¶24

Chinnappillai (Deceased) v. Chellammal

Madras HC15 Apr 2025CRP/1511/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRP(NPD) 1511/2017 Madras HC 15.04.2025 N.Senthilkumar J.; Section 115 CPC 1908 revision; District Munsif Sirkali order 28.02.2017; E.A.No.117 of 2012 in E.P.No.34 of 2009 in O.S.No.68 of 1986; suit 1986 recovery of possession decreed for plaintiffs; no appeal by defendants; EA filed with same content as suit dismissed as not maintainable; CRP dismissed for improper service of notice (affidavit of service not filed; notice only R1/R2; no paper publication proof R3); no costs; maintainability merits not adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Due to improper service of notice on the contesting respondents (affidavit of service not filed; notice served only on respondents 1 and 2; no proof of paper publication for respondent 3), the application in E.A.No.117 of 2012 now under challenge needs no interference of this Court, and the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the dismissal of E.A.No.117 of 2012 as not maintainable by the District Munsif, Sirkali warrants interference by this Court in civil revision.

Court's answer

Due to improper service of notice on the contesting respondents (affidavit of service not filed; notice served only on respondents 1 and 2; no proof of paper publication for respondent 3), the application in E.A.No.117 of 2012 now under challenge needs no interference of this Court, and the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed without costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (N.Senthilkumar, J.), 15.04.2025 - C.R.P.(NPD) No.1511 of 2017 (with C.M.P.No.7027 of 2017): Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2017 of the District Munsif, Sirkali dismissing E.A.No.117 of 2012 (in E.P.No.34 of 2009 in O.S.No.68 of 1986) as not maintainable. Background: the Suit of 1986 was for recovery of possession and was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs (respondents here); no appeal was preferred by the defendants; thereafter E.P.No.34 of 2009 and E.A.No.117 of 2012 (filed with the very same content as the Suit) were filed. Held: because of improper service of notice - affidavit of service not filed before the Registry, notice served only on respondents 1 and 2, and no proof of paper publication for respondent 3 - the challenged application needs no interference; the merits of maintainability were NOT decided. Civil Revision Petition dismissed, no costs.

A

C.R.P.(NPD) No.1511 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

C.R.P.(NPD)No.1511 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.7027 of 2017

Chinnappillai (Deceased) Chinnapillai (Deceased) Taiyalnayagi (Deceased)

1.Krishnamurthy 2.Chellappan

Panchali (Deceased)

3.Gunasekaran ... Petitioners

Vs

1.Chellammal 2.Ganesamurthy 3.Thangarasu ... Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2017 passed in E.A.No.117 of 2012 in E.P.No.34 of 2009 in O.S.No.68 of 1986 by the learned District Munsif, Sirkali.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Sriram Prabu for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondents :

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD) No.1511 of 2017

ORDER

The Suit is of the year 1986. After the decreetal of the Suit in

O.S.No.68 of 1986, a petition in E.P.No.34 of 2009 and E.A.No.117 of 2012 was filed. We find the Execution Court has recorded that pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.68 of 1986, no appeal was preferred by the defendants therein. Originally the Suit in O.S.No.68 of 1986 was filed for recovery of possession and the same was decreed in favour of the respondents herein. E.A.No.117 of 2012 was filed with the very same content which was found in the Suit. The trial Court has dismissed the E.A.No.117 of 2012 as not maintainable. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.

2.At the time of Admission, this Court had directed the revision petitioner to take notice on the contesting respondents / plaintiffs in the suit, who have succeeded before the trial Court. From the cause list, it is seen that the affidavit of service has not been filed before the Registry, however, the notice has been served on the 1st and 2nd respondent. Proof of paper publication for R3 is also not filed.

3.Due to improper service of notice, the application filed in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD) No.1511 of 2017

E.A.No.117 of 2012, which is now under challenge, needs no interference of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed accordingly. No costs.

15.04.2025

kas Index: Yes / No Neutral Citation

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD) No.1511 of 2017

kas

C.R.P.(NPD)No.1511 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.7027 of 2017

15.04.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the dismissal of E.A.No.117 of 2012 as not maintainable by the District Munsif, Sirkali warrants interference by this Court in civil revision.medium confidence¶13
The court held
Due to improper service of notice on the contesting respondents (affidavit of service not filed; notice served only on respondents 1 and 2; no proof of paper publication for respondent 3), the application in E.A.No.117 of 2012 now under challenge needs no interference of this Court, and the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed without costs.ratio¶24

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 115¶13

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Fair and decreetal order dismissing E.A.No.117 of 2012 (in E.P.No.34 of 2009 in O.S.No.68 of 1986) as not maintainable¶13
District Munsif, Sirkali · 28.02.2017
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.68 of 1986 (Suit of year 1986) was filed for recovery of possession and was decreed in favour of the respondents herein (plaintiffs)¶19
Prior proceeding
Execution Court recorded that pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.68 of 1986, no appeal was preferred by the defendants therein¶19
Prior proceeding
After the decree in O.S.No.68 of 1986, a petition in E.P.No.34 of 2009 and an application in E.A.No.117 of 2012 were filed¶19
Prior proceeding
E.A.No.117 of 2012 was filed with the very same content found in the Suit; the trial Court dismissed it as not maintainable, triggering the present Civil Revision Petition¶19
Prior proceeding
At admission, this Court had directed the revision petitioner to take notice on the contesting respondents / plaintiffs in the suit, who have succeeded before the trial Court¶20
Prior proceeding
Affidavit of service not filed before the Registry; notice served on respondents 1 and 2 only; proof of paper publication for respondent 3 not filed¶20

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Krishnamurthy¶8
N.S.Sriram Prabu, P.Anbarasan
petitioner
Chellappan¶8
N.S.Sriram Prabu, P.Anbarasan
petitioner
Gunasekaran¶10
N.S.Sriram Prabu, P.Anbarasan
other
Chinnappillai (Deceased)¶7
other
Chinnapillai (Deceased)¶7
other
Taiyalnayagi (Deceased)¶7
other
Panchali (Deceased)¶9
respondent
Chellammal¶12
respondent
Ganesamurthy¶12
respondent
Thangarasu¶12

Coram

AI extract

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMARauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 15 Apr 2025 · April
Registered: 19 Apr 2017
Case no.: CRP/1511/2017
CNR: HCMA011639742017
Bench: N.senthilkumar
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: C.R.P.(NPD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from N.senthilkumar

M.Velusamy Vs Mylathal
21 Mar 2025
AnandhramSah Vs S.Mohana
21 Mar 2025
K.a.Shanaws Khan Vs Yahiakhan
21 Mar 2025
M.Sakthivel Vs S.Kiruthika Vadivu
15 Apr 2025
D. Thirunavukarasu Vs P.v.P.Murthy (Died)
15 Apr 2025
D. Thirunavukarasu Vs P.v.P.Murthy (Died)
15 Apr 2025

Cite this judgement

Chinnappillai (Deceased) v. Chellammal, CRP/1511/2017 (MAD), decided on 15 April 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 115

View all statutes

Procedural history7

Fair and decreetal order dismissing E.A.No.117 of 2012 (in E.P.No.34 of 2009 in O.S.No.68 of 1986) as not maintainableDistrict Munsif, Sirkali · 28.02.2017
O.S.No.68 of 1986 (Suit of year 1986) was filed for recovery of possession and was decreed in favour of the respondents herein (plaintiffs)
Execution Court recorded that pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.68 of 1986, no appeal was preferred by the defendants therein

View full history

Bench / Coram

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

Parties & counsel