Dismissed¶¶42

Arayee v. Madhammal

Madras HC2 Sept 2025CRP/1829/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 47 CPC standing - only judgment debtor, not a third party stranger to the suit, may question execution or validity of decree in execution proceedings; specific performance decree; non-parties' Section 47 objection claiming 2/3rd share disallowed; remedy lies elsewhere, not before Executing Court; Article 227 CRP before Madras High Court; partition suit dismissed for non-prosecution and not restored; revision petition dismissed, Executing Court order confirmed, liberty to approach competent forum.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed and the order passed in E.A.No.1 of 2021 confirmed; liberty granted to the revision petitioners to file an appropriate application, as permissible in law, to agitate their rights before the competent forum; no costs; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP.No.11759 of 2023) closed.

Arayee Vs Madhammal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petitioners, who were admittedly not parties to the suit in O.S.No.27 of 2014, could invoke Section 47 of CPC in the execution proceedings to question the decree and claim a 2/3rd share in the suit property. +1 more

¶¶36

Court's answer

Section 47 of CPC enables only the judgment debtor to question the execution or validity of the decree; a third party to the suit is not entitled to invoke the provision of Section 47 of CPC.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the order passed by the Executing Court, the Executing Court rightly held that the remedy of the revision petitioners is not before the Executing Court but elsewhere, having noticed that the petitioners had not filed any application to set aside the dismissal of their partition suit O.S.No.9 of 2014.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

There is no infirmity in the findings or the order of the Executing Court dismissing the Section 47 application.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.11.2022 in E.A.No.1 of 2021 in E.P.No.9 of 2019 in O.S.No.27 of 2014 (District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Edappadi), whereby the Executing Court dismissed the revision petitioners' Section 47 CPC application claiming a 2/3rd share in the suit property. Held: Section 47 of CPC enables only the judgment debtor to question the execution or validity of a decree, and a third party to the suit is not entitled to invoke it. The Executing Court rightly held that the petitioners' remedy lay elsewhere, noting that their partition suit O.S.No.9 of 2014 stood dismissed for non-prosecution without any step towards restoration. Revision petition dismissed; the Executing Court's order confirmed; liberty granted to the petitioners to agitate their rights before the competent forum; connected CMP closed.

¶1

C.R.P.No.1829 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

C.R.P.No.1829 of 2023 and CMP.No.11759 of 2023

1.Arayee

2.Mani

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.Madhammal

2.Edumban

...Respondents

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 09.11.2022 made in E.A.No.1 of 2021 in E.P.No.9 of 2019 in O.S.No.27 of 2014 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Edappadi by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Manoharan

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.P.Jagadeesan for R1

No appearance

for R2

1/6

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

¶21

C.R.P.No.1829 of 2023

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶24

counsel for the respondents.

¶25

Challenging the dismissal of E.A.No.1 of 2021 filed by the revision petitioners, the present revision petition has been filed. Admittedly, the revision petitioners were not parties to the suit in O.S.No.27 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari. The said suit was filed by the first respondent / decree holder seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into with the second respondent /judgment debtor. The suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent herein. Execution proceedings were thereafter initiated in E.P.No.9 of 2019 to enforce the decree for specific performance.

¶26

While the execution petition was pending, the revision petitioners filed E.A.No.1 of 2021 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming entitlement to a 2/3rd share in the suit property. The application was contested by the first respondent / decree holder and came to be dismissed by the Executing Court.

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P.No.1829 of 2023

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have a legitimate share in the suit property, and the agreement between the judgment debtor and decree holder was executed behind their back. He contends that the decree is a collusive one and that the Executing Court failed to assign proper reasons while dismissing their Section 47 application. It is further submitted that the petitioners should not be driven to a fresh round of litigation and that their claims ought to have been adjudicated within the execution proceedings itself.

¶31

Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the revision petitioners were not parties to the suit and, therefore, are not judgment debtors. The suit was filed by a prospective purchaser to enforce an agreement of sale with the second respondent / judgment debtor, and the petitioners have no right of audience in such proceedings. He also brings to the notice of this Court that the revision petitioners had filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.9 of 2014, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, and no steps have been taken to restore the same. Furthermore, he points out that the decree holder had also entered into a separate agreement of sale with

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P.No.1829 of 2023

¶35

another brother of the revision petitioners, and that suit was decreed, resulting in execution of a sale deed. The petitioners did not raise any similar objections in those proceedings. He contends that there is no legal infirmity in the order of the Executing Court warranting interference.

¶36

These petitions have been filed by the revision petitioners in E.A.No.1 of 2021 under Section 47 of the CPC. Section 47 of CPC enables only the judgment debtor to question the execution or validity of the decree, on certain available grounds. A third party to the suit is not entitled to invoke the provision of Section 47 of CPC. Further, on perusal of the order passed by the Executing Court, I find that the Executing Court has rightly held that the remedy of the revision petitioners is not before the Executing Court, but elsewhere and the Court also noticed that the petitioners have not filed any application to set aside the dismissal of the suit for partition in O.S.No.9 of 2014.

¶37

In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the findings or the order of the Executing Court. However, considering the submission made

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

C.R.P.No.1829 of 2023

¶41

by the learned counsel for the petitioners, liberty is granted to the revision petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with law.

¶42

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed, and the order passed in E.A.No.1 of 2021 is confirmed. However, liberty is granted to the revision petitioners to file an appropriate application, as permissible in law, to agitate their rights before the competent forum. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶43

02.09.2025

¶44

Index : No Internet : Yes jas

¶45

¶46

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Edappadi.

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

¶49