Dismissed¶45

Viswanathan v. Sarasu

Madras HC26 Jun 2025CRP/2530/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: transposition of co-decree holder in execution proceedings; Article 227 Constitution of India civil revision; Executing Court order upheld; preliminary decree 04.02.1994 in O.S.No.782 of 1992; E.A.No.10 of 2017 in E.P.No.21/2014; delivery of possession/allotment of property; direction to expedite execution within three months; Subordinate Judge Perundurai; no costs. Useful for practitioners on limits of transposing parties between decree holders once a preliminary decree binds both, and on Article 227 supervisory directions to expedite execution.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed with no costs; Executing Court directed to expedite execution proceedings, not later than three months from receipt of a copy of the Order. ¶45

Viswanathan Vs Sarasu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision dismissed with no costs; Executing Court directed to expedite execution proceedings, not later than three months from receipt of a copy of the Order.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Executing Court rejecting the first decree holder's application to transpose the second decree holder as a respondent in the execution proceedings suffers from any infirmity, i.e., whether the Civil Revision Petition has merit.

¶32

Court's answer

This Court finds no infirmity in the order of the Executing Court rejecting the transposition application.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Whether the petitioner was at an earlier point of time transposed as second decree holder at the petitioner's instance is insignificant, since the decree itself has been passed in favour of both decree holders; the decree must now be executed and delivery of possession proceeded with for allotting the property.

¶40

Key takeaways

The Executing Court is directed to expedite the execution proceedings as early as possible, not later than three months from receipt of a copy of this Order.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (N. Sathish Kumar, J.), 26.06.2025 - CRP NPD.No.2530 of 2025 (petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India): The petitioner, one of the decree holders, challenged the order dated 24.03.2025 in E.A.No.10 of 2017 in E.P.No.21/2014 in O.S.No.782 of 1992 (Subordinate Judge, Perundurai) rejecting her application to transpose the second decree holder as a respondent in the execution proceedings. The second decree holder had earlier been moved from respondent to petitioner on the basis of an alleged no objection of the petitioner, which the petitioner disclaimed, contending only her counsel had made the endorsement. Held: no infirmity in the Executing Court's order; since the preliminary decree dated 04.02.1994 had already been passed in favour of both decree holders, the question of the earlier transposition assumed insignificance, and the decree had to be executed with delivery of possession for allotting the property. Civil Revision Petition dismissed, no costs; Executing Court directed to expedite execution proceedings not later than three months from receipt of a copy of the Order.

¶1

CRP NPD.No.2530 of 2025

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Date : 26.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRP [NPD] No.2530 of 2025

¶7

Thangayal [died] Viswanahan

¶8

. . . Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sarasu K.S.Ramasami [died]

¶11

R.Maheshkumar [died]

¶12

R.Duraisamy

¶13

K.P.Palanisami

¶14

P.Anandhan Rangasami [died] K.P.Govindasami [died]

¶15

Muthusami Lakshmanan [died]

¶16

Eswaramoorthy

¶17

Dhakshinamoorthy

¶18

K.Parimaladevi

¶19

Ramathal Subbulakshmi [died] 10. Pappathi

¶20

Sarasa

¶21

A.Arumugam

¶22

A.Jeevanathan

¶23

Page 1 / 5

¶24

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

¶25

CRP NPD.No.2530 of 2025

¶26

S.Thangamani

¶27

. . . Respondents

¶28

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal Order passed in E.A.No.10 of 2017 in E.P.No.21/2014 in O.S.No.782 of 1992 dated 24.03.2025 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perundurai.

¶29

For petitioner : Mr.Harikrishnan R

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Challenge has been made to the Order of the Executing Court rejecting

¶32

the application filed by one of the decree holder to transpose the second decree holder as a respondent, in the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶33

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the second decree holder is not co-operating with her in the execution proceedings to execute the preliminary decree passed as early as on 04.02.1994, sought to transpose second decree holder as the respondent. It is his further contention that the second decree holder was originally arrayed as a respondent and she was transposed as the petitioner on the basis of the

¶34

Page 2 / 5

¶35

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

¶36

CRP NPD.No.2530 of 2025

¶37

alleged no objection given by the petitioner. According to her, she has not given no objection, only the counsel has made an endorsement. Therefore, sought to transpose the second petitioner as the respondent. The trial Court taking note of the fact that originally the second decree holder has been arrayed as a respondent and she was transposed as the decree holder on the basis of the endorsement made on behalf of the first petitioner namely, the second decree holder, rejected her contention as the preliminary decree has already been passed in favour of both the parties as early as on 04.02.1994. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶38

I have perused entire materials and heard the learned counsel

¶39

appearing for the petitioner.

¶40

On a perusal of records, this Court does not find any infirmity in the Order of the Executing Court. Whether the petitioner at the earlier point of time transposed as second petitioner, at the instance of the petitioner or not assume insignificance, since the decree itself has been passed in favour of both of them. Now, the decree has to be executed and delivery of possession has to

¶41

Page 3 / 5

¶42

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

¶43

CRP NPD.No.2530 of 2025

¶44

be proceeded for allotting the property. Hence, I do not find any merits in this revision. However, this Court directs the Executing Court to expedite the execution proceedings as early as possible, not later than three months from the of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶45