Disposed¶79

E.Kondala Rao v. T.D.Padmavathy

Madras HC4 Dec 2025CRP/5239/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: civil revision petition; Section 115 CPC; Order XXI Rule 97 CPC; executing court; EA.No.4/2025; EP.No.4727/2012; IX Assistant City Civil Judge Chennai; obstruction application; no independent right over schedule property; decree holder; costs set aside for want of reasons; time to vacate premises refused; ten obstructors; Madras High Court; single judge P.B. Balaji; disposed of, no costs; connected CMPs 26413 and 26425 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 13.08.2025 of the Executing Court confirmed; imposition of costs alone set aside; Civil Revision Petitions disposed of with no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petitions (CMP Nos. 26413 and 26425 of 2025) closed; no time to vacate granted. ¶79

E.Kondala Rao Vs T.D.Padmavathy — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether the Executing Court committed any infirmity in dismissing the petitioners' application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC on the finding that they have no independent right over the schedule property. +1 more

¶71

Court's answer

This Court finds no infirmity in the Executing Court's order dismissing the petitioners' application; the petitioners have no independent right over the schedule property, and the order dated 13.08.2025 is confirmed.

¶70

Ratio / Principle

The imposition of costs by the Executing Court cannot be justified, as no reasons were assigned for awarding such huge costs in favour of the decree holder; the imposition of costs alone is set aside while confirming the rest of the order.

¶78

Key takeaways

The petitioners' request for six months' and three months' time respectively to vacate the premises was vehemently opposed by counsel for the decree holder and was not accommodated; the Civil Revision Petitions were simply disposed of.ratio¶78

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.B. Balaji, J.) — Civil Revision Petitions under Section 115 CPC (CRP Nos. 5239 and 5244 of 2025) against the fair and decretal order dated 13.08.2025 in EA.No.4/2025 in EP.No.4727/2012 passed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC by the IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. Held: (i) no infirmity in the Executing Court's dismissal of the petitioners' application, they having no independent right over the schedule property — order confirmed; (ii) the imposition of costs by the Executing Court in favour of the decree holder set aside, no reasons having been assigned for such huge costs; (iii) requests by the petitioners for six months' and three months' time to vacate the premises, opposed by counsel for the decree holder, were not granted. Petitions disposed of with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

CRP Nos. 5239 and 5244 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

CRP Nos. 5239 and 5244 of 2025 AND

¶7

CMP NO. 26413 of 2025 and CMP NO. 26425 OF 2025 E.Kondala Rao

¶8

Petitioner in CRP.No.5239 of 2025

¶9

Dr.Sasikala Ramakrishnan

¶10

Petitioner in CRP.No.5244 of 2025

¶11

¶12

T.D.Padmavathy

¶13

2.Mohideen Meera

¶14

A.Mohammed Abdul Khader (Deceased)

3.A. Mohammed Rasool

4.A.M.Noorddin

5.A.M.Nazina Bivi

6.A.M.Siddiq

7.A.M.Sheik Mansoor

8.A.M.Abdul Rahaman

9.A.M.Shahul Hameed

10.Selvi. Aysha Banu

11.K.R.Kamalakar

12.Ayyub Nisha

1/7

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

¶27

CRP Nos. 5239 and 5244 of 2025

13.A.Aseena Malik

14.A.A.Ameen Malik

15.G.Kannan

16.J. Murali

17.Dr.Sasikala Ramkrishnan

18.M.Aarthi

19.P.Parthipan

20.Lakshmi

21.Anjali Devi

22.A.Mustaq

23.Arunathi

24.K.Babee

25.Devika Manikkam

Respondents in CRP.No.5239 of 2025

¶42

T.D.Padmavathy

¶43

2.Mohideen Meera

¶44

A.Mohammed Abdul Khader (Deceased)

3.A. Mohammed Rasool

4.A.M.Noorddin

5.A.M.Nazina Bivi

6.A.M.Siddiq

2/7

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

¶51

CRP Nos. 5239 and 5244 of 2025

¶52

7.A.M.Sheik Mansoor

¶53

8.A.M.Abdul Rahaman

¶54

9.A.M.Shahul Hameed 10.Selvi. Aysha Banu 11.K.R.Kamalakar 12.Ayyub Nisha 13.A.Aseena Malik 14.A.A.Ameen Malik 15.E.Kondala Rao 16.G.Kannan 17.J.Murali 18.M.Aarthi 19.P.Parthipan 20.Lakshmi 21.Anjali Devi 22.A.Mustaq 23.Arunathi 24.K.Babee 25.Devika Manikkam

¶55

Respondents in CRP.No.5244 of 2025

¶56

PRAYER in CRP.No.5239 of 2025:

¶57

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code,

¶58

3/7

¶59

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

¶60

CRP Nos. 5239 and 5244 of 2025

¶61

before this Court against the fair and Decretal order dated 13.8.2025 passed in EA.No.4/2025 in EP.No. 4727/2012 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai.

¶62

PRAYER in CRP.No.5244 of 2025:

¶63

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code,

¶64

before this Court against the fair and Decreetal order dated 13.08.2025 passed in EA.NO.4/2025 in EP.No. 4727/2012 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai.

¶65

For Petitioner: Mr.Vijayamehanath (in both CRP’S) For Respondents: Mrs.R.Angalaparameswari (R1) (in both CRP’s)

¶66

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶67

The revision petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.08.2025

¶68

passed under Order XXI Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code.

¶69

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶70

I do not find infirmity in the order passed by the Executing Court in

¶71

dismissing the application filed by the petitioners finding that they have no independent right over the schedule property. However, I am not able to justify

¶72

4/7

¶73

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

¶74

CRP Nos. 5239 and 5244 of 2025

¶75

the imposition of costs by the Executing Court and no reasons have been

¶76

assigned for awarding such huge costs in favour of the decree holder.

¶77

4.In the light of the above, while confirming the order dated 13.08.2025

¶78

passed by the Executing Court, imposition of costs alone is set aside. Though the petitioners made a request for time to vacate the premises by six months and three months respectively, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the said request for grant of time as according to the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/decree holder purchased the property in the year 1998 and apart from petitioners, there are 10 obstructors, against whom Execution Petition is pending.

¶79

Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶80

04-12-2025

¶81

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

¶82

5/7

¶83

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

¶84

CRP Nos. 5239 and 5244 of 2025