Dismissed¶35

Rajalakshmi v. Ojas Finance

Madras HC19 Mar 2025CRP/483/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Executing court docket order rejecting unnumbered application; Order XXI Rule 101 r/w 151 CPC maintainability; third-party / subsequent purchaser seeking declaration that decree is not valid and binding; decree dated 14.09.1994 in O.S.No.45 of 1994; E.P.No.931 of 2016 for delivery of property against legal heirs of deceased defendant Ramasamy; E.A.CFR No.28693 of 2024; CRP dismissed with liberty to proceed in accordance with law; 2nd Additional Subordinate Court Coimbatore; High Court of Madras; A.D. Jagadish Chandira J.; 19.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; petitioner left open to proceed in accordance with law; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.4906 of 2025) closed; no costs. ¶35

Rajalakshmi Vs Ojas Finance — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P. No. 483 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.03.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

C.R.P.No.483 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.4906 of 2025

Rajalakshmi

... Petitioner

OJAS Finance, Represented by its Partner, D.No.1/156A, Sathy main road, SS Kulam, Coimbatore – 641 107. Ramasamy (Died)

¶11

R.Meena

¶12

Praveenkumar

¶13

Hari Gowtham

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the rejection (docket) order passed by the 2^nd Additional Subordinate Court at Coimbatore dated 03.12.2024 in E.A.CFR No.28693 of 2024 in E.P.No.931 of 2016.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravana Kumar For R1 : Mr.S.Karthikei Balan For R2 to R4 : Mr.M.R.Thangavel

¶17

1 / 5

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P. No. 483 of 2025

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the docket order passed by the 2^nd Additional Subordinate Court at Coimbatore, on 03.12.2024 in in E.A.CFR No.28693 of 2024 in E.P.No.931 of 2016 in O.S.No.45 of 1994.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner is the 3^rd party. The Suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.45 of 1994 against one Ramasamy/defendant before the 2^nd Additional Subordinate Court at Coimbatore, was decreed on 14.09.1994. Thereafter, the first respondent had filed an execution petition in E.P.No.931 of 2016 against the respondents 2 to 4, who are the legal heirs of the defendant Ramasamy, for delivery of the property. The petitioner, who claims to the subsequent purchaser, had filed E.A.CFR No.28693 of 2024 with a prayer seeking to declare the decree passed in O.S.No.45 of 1994 dated 14.09.1994 is not valid and binding on the petitioner pertained to petition mentioned property. The Executing Court, finding that such a prayer cannot be maintained, had rejected the petition without numbering the same. Against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the docket order passed

¶24

2 / 5

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P. No. 483 of 2025

¶27

by the executing Court rejecting the petition without numbering the same is against law. He further submitted that the Court ought to have numbered the petition, heard the petitioner and passed a judicial order rather than rejecting the same. Hence, he prayed to set aside the docket order dated 03.12.2024.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the executing Court, finding that the prayer in E.A.CFR No.28693 of 2024 is not maintainable in an application filed under Order XXI Rule 101 r/w 151 of CPC, had rightly rejected the application. Further, the petitioner claims to have been cheated by respondents 2 to 4, therefore, in such circumstances, she can only take action against respondents 2 to 4 and cannot seek to declare the decree as not valid.

¶29

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

On perusal of record, this Court is able to see that the petition in E.A.CFR No.28693 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 101 r/w 151 of CPC, in which, the prayer had sought to declare the decree passed in O.S.No.45 of 1994 dated 14.09.1994 is not valid.

¶31

3 / 5

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P. No. 483 of 2025

¶34

Considering the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merits in the revision petition as the prayer sought for by the petitioner in E.A.CFR No.28693 of 2024 before the 2^nd Additional Subordinate Court at Coimbatore is not maintainable. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

¶35

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶36

19.03.2025

¶37

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

¶38

¶39