Dismissed¶33

K.Nirmala v. M.Chandra

Madras HC16 Jul 2025CRP(MD)/1791/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: C.R.P.(MD)No.1791 of 2022; K.Nirmala vs M.Chandra; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Article 227 Constitution of India; Section 47 CPC; Article 135 of the Limitation Act; Article 136 of the Limitation Act; Section 135 of the Limitation Act; execution petition limitation; bare injunction decree; mandatory injunction; prohibitory injunction; three years; District Munsif Court Aundipatti; O.S.No.137 of 2009; E.P.No. 37 of 2019; E.A.No.01 of 2021; ex-parte decree 20.02.2014; E.P. filed 28.08.2019; revision dismissed; decided 16.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. ¶33

K.Nirmala Vs M.Chandra — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition should succeed in setting aside the trial Court's allowance of E.A.No.01 of 2021 - i.e., whether Execution Petition E.P.No. 37 of 2019 was filed within the period of limitation applicable to a decree for injunction (Article 135 vs Article 136 of the Limitation Act).

¶19

Court's answer

Notwithstanding the petitioner's claim that there are different kinds of injunction (mandatory/prohibitory), what the petitioner sought for in the decree is just a bare injunction.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

When an issue of limitation is involved, the Court cannot interpret the bare-injunction decree in a different way.

¶31

Key takeaways

The trial Court rightly allowed the E.A. filed by the respondent, rejecting the E.P. filed by the petitioner; hence the impugned order need not be interfered with.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), M.Dhandapani J., 16.07.2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by K.Nirmala against M.Chandra, challenging the order dated 17.06.2022 of the District Munsif Court, Aundipatti, whereby the respondent's E.A.No.01 of 2021 (filed under Section 47 of CPC to dismiss E.P.No. 37 of 2019 arising out of injunction suit O.S.No.137 of 2009, decreed ex-parte on 20.02.2014, with the E.P. filed only on 28.08.2019) was allowed on the ground of non-compliance with the limitation period per Article 135 of the Limitation Act. Holding: despite counsel's plea that injunction may be classified as mandatory or prohibitory (invoking Article 136), what was sought was just a bare injunction, which cannot be interpreted differently when limitation is at issue; accordingly the E.P. filed beyond the prescribed period was rightly rejected and the impugned order needed no interference. Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.1791 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.1791 of 2022

K.Nirmala

...Petitioner

Vs.

M.Chandra

...Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to call for the records and set aside the order and decreetal order dated 17.06.2022 in E.A.No.01 of 2021 in E.P.No. 37 of 2019 in O.S.No.137 of 2009, on the file of the Learned District Munsif Court, Aundipatti.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian For Respondents : Mr.V.A.Dhana Aravinda Balaji for M/s.Dhana Law Associates

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

C.R.P.(MD)No.1791 of 2022

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 17.06.2022 in E.A.No.01 of 2021 in E.P.No. 37 of 2019 in O.S.No.137 of 2009, on the file of the Learned District Munsif Court, Aundipatti.

¶19

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.137 of 2009 and the suit was decreed ex-parte on 20.02.2014. However, the petitioner filed the execution petition only on 28.08.2019. The respondent filed a petition in E.A.No.01 of 2021, under Section 47 of CPC, for dismissal of the Execution Petition as barred by limitation. The trial Court allowed the said petition, on the ground that the Execution Petition has not been filed within the period of limitation as per Article 135 of the Limitation Act. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶20

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the petitioner filed a suit for injunction. However, injunction may be classified as mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction. If it is so, the period of limitation is applicable as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, whereas the

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P.(MD)No.1791 of 2022

¶24

trial Court without considering the same, has erroneously dismissed the said application.

¶25

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no confusion in the prayer sought by the petitioner. It is only a bare injunction. If it is a simple injunction, then the execution petition must be filed within a period of three years, as per Section 135 of the Limitation Act. But, the petitioner has filed E.P., after three years. Therefore, he prays that the order of the trial Court need not be interfered with.

¶26

5. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

6. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.137 of 2009 and the suit was decreed ex-parte on 20.02.2014 and the petitioner filed the execution petition only on 28.08.2019. The respondent filed a petition in E.A.No.01 of 2021, under Section 47 of CPC, for dismissal of the Execution Petition as barred by limitation. The said E.A., came to be allowed by the trial Court. Though the petitioner claims that there are different kinds of injunction, what the petitioner sought for is just a bare injunction. The Court cannot

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

C.R.P.(MD)No.1791 of 2022

¶31

interpret the same in a different way, when an issue of limitation is involved.

¶32

Hence, the trial Court has rightly allowed the E.A. filed by the respondent, rejecting the E.P. filed by the petitioner. Hence, the said order need not be interfered with.

¶33