The High Court dismissed a third-party revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC. The Court held that a third-party application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 99 results in a deemed decree under Order XXI Rule 103, making the remedy an appeal, not a revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P(MD)No.1006 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(MD)No.1006 of 2020 and
C.M.P(MD)No.6528 of 2020
Khaja Mohideen ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ 3rd Party
Vs.
1.Ali Hussain ... Respondent/1st Respondent/ Petitioner/Plaintiff
2.Habibullah
3.Rasheeda Begum ... Respondents/Respondents 2&3/ Respondents 1&2/Defendants 1&2 4.Ayisha Begum ... Respondent/4th Respondent/ 3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the impugned order, dated 30.01.2020 passed in E.A.No.63 of 2016 in E.P.No.554 of 1999 in O.S.No.449 of
1/6
C.R.P(MD)No.1006 of 2020
1994 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli and consequently directing the learned Court to restore the possession of the third party/petitioner.
For Petitioner : M/s.T.Banumathy For R1 : Mr.M.Ashok Kumar For R2 - R4 : No Appearance
ORDER
The present revision petition has been filed by a third party to the suit in O.S.No.449 of 1994 challenging the dismissal of his application filed under Order XXI Rule 99 of Code of Civil Procedure.
of 1994 for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to let out Shop No.400, Big Bazaar, Tiruchirappalli only to the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from leasing out the said shop to any other person except the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte on 18.07.1996. The 1st respondent herein had filed
2/6
C.R.P(MD)No.1006 of 2020
E.P.No.554 of 1999 seeking possession of the property. Delivery was ordered by the trial Court and possession was also taken over by the plaintiff therein.
3/6
C.R.P(MD)No.1006 of 2020
appeal against the said order and the present revision petition is not maintainable.
04.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
gbg
4/6
C.R.P(MD)No.1006 of 2020
To
5/6
C.R.P(MD)No.1006 of 2020
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
gbg
Order made in C.R.P(MD)No.1006 of 2020
04.02.2025
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 99 CPC filed by a third party is maintainable
Whether a dismissal of such application constitutes a deemed decree under Order XXI Rule 103 CPC
Whether a Civil Revision Petition is maintainable against a deemed decree
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Khaja Mohideen
Ali Hussain
Habibullah
Rasheeda Begum
Ayisha Begum
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
