Dismissed¶34

M.Ganesan v. Muniammal

Madras HC8 Dec 2025CRP/6242/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 115 CPC civil revision; execution delivery order E.P.No.1723 of 2025 in O.S.No.1703 of 2019; notice to judgment debtor unnecessary as execution within two years of decree; no appellate stay of decree; Order XLI Rule 5 stay application before First Appellate Court by 15.12.2025; delivery of vacant possession to decree holder; A.S.No.9 of 2025 pending before XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai; Madras High Court; decision date 08-12-2025; neutral citation 2025:MHC:2815.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; however, execution was deferred for two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order to enable the petitioner to obtain interim orders in the pending first appeal, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed with no costs. ¶34

M.Ganesan Vs Muniammal — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the delivery order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the Learned XXVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in E.P.No.1723 of 2025 in O.S.No.1703 of 2019 is liable to be set aside under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶17

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned order, this Court does not see any infirmity or impropriety in the order passed by the Learned Executing Court.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since the decree was executed within two years from the date of the decree, notice to the judgment debtor was not necessary; the Executing Court rightly took note of this fact.

¶25

Key takeaways

As no stay had been granted by the Appellate Court against the decree, the Executing Court rightly ordered the Execution Petition for delivery of vacant possession to the decree holder.ratio¶25
The civil revision petition is dismissed because the petitioners' appeal is already pending before the First Appellate Court; the petitioners may move an appropriate stay application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC on or before 15.12.2025, which the First Appellate Court shall dispose of expeditiously, and execution is deferred for two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order to enable the petitioner to obtain interim orders in the pending first appeal.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.B. Balaji J.) dismissed a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the delivery order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the XXVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in E.P.No.1723 of 2025 in O.S.No.1703 of 2019 arising from a 2019 decree for possession. The Court held that the Executing Court committed no infirmity: execution having been initiated within two years of the decree, notice to the judgment debtors was not necessary, and no stay had been granted by the Appellate Court notwithstanding the pendency of A.S.No.9 of 2025 before the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The petitioners were left to seek a stay under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC on or before 15.12.2025, with execution deferred for two weeks; the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed and no costs were awarded.

¶1

2025:MHC:2815

¶2

CRP No. 6242 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 08-12-2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶7

CRP No. 6242 of 2025 and CMP No. 30863 of 2025

1.M.Ganesan

2.Selvi

Petitioner(s)

1.Muniammal

2.N.Sudhakar

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to allow the present petition by setting aside the order dated 25.10.2025 passed in EP No.1723 of 2025 in OS No.1703 of 2019 by the Learned XXVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Vinayaga Vishnu For Respondent(s): Mr.A.P.Srinivasan

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The civil revision petition challenges the order of the delivery passed by

¶21

the Executing Court in E.P.No.1723 of 2025 in O.S.No.1703 of 2019 on the file of XXVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 25.10.2025.

¶22

Page 1 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

CRP No. 6242 of 2025

¶25

On perusal of the impugned order, I do not see any infirmity or impropriety in the order passed by the Learned Executing Court. The Executing Court has rightly taken note of the fact that decree had been passed within two years from the date of the decree and hence notice to the judgment debtor was not necessary. The Court has also rightly found that no stay has been granted by the Appellate Court. Therefore, ordered the Execution Petition for delivery of vacant possession to the decree holder.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the A.S.No.9 of 2025 has already been filed and the same is pending before the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. However, he would fairly submit that there is no stay granted by the Appellate Court against the decree in O.S.No.1703 of 2019.

¶27

Per contra, Mr.A.P.Srinivasan, learned counsel, who takes notice for the respondents, submitted that the revision filed is only to protract the proceedings and admittedly the petitioners have suffered a decree for possessing the subject property and since 2019, for the last 6 years, the respondents are unable to get back their property.

¶28

In light of the above, I am inclined to dismiss the civil revision petition,

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

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

¶31

CRP No. 6242 of 2025

¶32

as an appeal filed by the petitioners is already pending before the First Appellate Court. It is for the petitioners to move appropriate stay application under order

¶33

XLI Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and if any filed on or before 15.12.2025, that the First Appellate Court shall dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously after hearing on both sides. The execution petition shall be deferred for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, to enable the petitioner to obtain interim orders in the pending first appeal.

¶34