V. Kannammal Vs M. Vikash Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

V. Kannammal Vs M. Vikash Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 30.06.2025 in EA No.5 of 2025 in EP No.5441 of 2022 in O.S.No.5769 of 2022 set aside; civil revision petition allowed; this Court's order setting aside the nullification of the cancellation of the sale certificate to be communicated to the Sub Registrar concerned at the costs of the petitioner; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.18306 of 2025) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the executing Court has any suo motu power to recall orders passed in an execution petition and, further, to set aside an auction sale that has already been validly concluded under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Court's answer

The executing Court has no suo motu power to recall the orders passed in the execution petition, much less to set aside an auction sale that has been validly concluded in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure; consequently, the executing Court's invocation of Section 340 CrPC to annul the concluded sale was impermissible.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 30.06.2025 in EA No.5 of 2025 in EP No.5441 of 2022 in O.S.No.5769 of 2022 is perverse, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law; it is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (Art. 227) — Executing Court's suo motu power: The High Court of Judicature at Madras (P.B. Balaji J.) held that an executing Court has no suo motu power to recall orders passed in an execution petition, much less to set aside an auction sale validly concluded under the Code of Civil Procedure. The order dated 30.06.2025 of the XXV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in E.A.No.5 of 2025 in E.P.No.5441 of 2022 in O.S.No.5769 of 2022 — which, behind the back of the auction purchaser (who had paid Rs.1,40,70,000/- and taken possession), invoked Section 340 CrPC to set aside the sale on the ground that the decree holder and judgment debtor had not brought material documentary evidence to its notice — was held perverse, illegal and unsustainable and was set aside. The CRP was allowed; the order restoring the sale certificate is to be communicated to the Sub Registrar at the petitioner's costs; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

CRP No. 3315 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CRP No. 3315 of 2025 and CMP No.18306 of 2025

V. Kannammal W/o. Veerappan, No.37/77, Bangara Street, Mount Road, Annasalai, Chennai - 002.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

M. Vikash Kumar S/o. Mahaveer Chand, No.93, Cementry Road, Royapuram, Chennai - 013.

2.The Madras Rattan Bazaar Road Cabinet and Rattan Merchants Charities Sabha, Rep. by its Trustees K.Kamal, S/o. Balachandraraj, No.18, Chidambaranathan Street, Opp to Stanley Hospital, Royapuram, Chennai - 013.

Respondent(s)

Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against

the order passed in E.A.No.5 of 2025 in E.P.No.5441 of 2022 in O.S.No.5769

of 2022 on the file of XXV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated

30.06.2025 and to set aside the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel For Mr.K.Balaji For Respondent(s): No appearance

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

CRP No. 3315 of 2025

ORDER

Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.

Learned Senior Counsel would bring to my notice that the revision petitioner is the auction purchaser, who has parted with sum of Rs.1,40,70,000/(Rupees One Crore Forty Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only) for the purpose of purchase of the decreetal property and he has also been placed in possession. However, behind his back, the executing Court, suo-motu, has proceeded to set aside the sale, entertaining powers under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code finding that the decree holder and the judgment debtor have not brought material documentary evidence to the notice of the Court.

In any event, the executing Court does not have any suo-motu power to recall the orders passed in the execution petition, much less to set aside the auction sale that has been concluded validly in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 in EA No.5 of 2025 in EP No.5441 of 2022 in O.S.No.5769 of 2022 is clearly

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

CRP No. 3315 of 2025

perverse, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, it is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed.

Learned Senior Counsel would bring to my notice that pursuant to

the order passed by the executing Court, the order cancelling the sale certificate has been intimated to the Sub Registrar concerned.

In view there of, this order, setting aside the order nullifying the cancellation of the sale certificate shall also be communicated to the Sub Registrar concerned at the costs of the petitioner.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

09-12-2025

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No sr

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

CRP No. 3315 of 2025

To

1.M. Vikash Kumar S/o. Mahaveer Chand, No.93, Cementry Road, Royapuram, Chennai - 013.

2.The Madras Rattan Bazaar Road Cabinet and Rattan Merchants Charities Sabha, Rep. by its Trustees K.Kamal, S/o. Balachandraraj, No.18, Chidambaranathan Street, Opp to Stanley Hospital, Royapuram, Chennai - 013.

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

CRP No. 3315 of 2025

P.B.BALAJI J.

sr

CRP No. 3315 of 2025

09-12-2025

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