A third party filed an obstruction petition claiming right over a pathway during execution of a decreed suit. The court observed that an Advocate Commissioner only enforces the decree by ascertaining metes and bounds, that any right of the obstructor must be agitated separately, and dismissed the revision petition.
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.
CRP(MD). No.3837 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 18.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
CRP(MD). No.3837 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD) No.20219 of 2025
P.Davi ... Petitioner
Vs
Vincent (Died)
PRAYER :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to the unnumbered E.A.SR.No.4205 of 2025 in E.P.No.32 of 2022 in O.S.No. 248 of 2017 on the file of Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District and further, direct the subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, to number the obstruction petition filed by the petitioner in unnumbered E.A.SR.No.4205 of 2025 in E.P.No.32 of 2022 in O.S.No.248 of 2017 and dispose of the same on merits within a
1/4
CRP(MD). No.3837 of 2025
reasonable time as may be specified by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. K.Ragatheesh Kumar for M/s.Isaac Chambers
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to direct the Subordinate
Court, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District to number the unnumbered E.A.SR.No.4205 of 2025 in E.P.No.32 of 2022 in O.S.No. 248 of 2017 and dispose of the same.
obstruction petition claiming right over the pathway. The suit was decreed on 14.09.2018 and further, a portion of the property was gifted by the plaintiff to use the same as a pathway on 07.01.2020. When Execution Petition was filed, where the revision petitioner, who is the obstructor, claims that the plaintiff has no right as there is a pathway in which the revision petitioner has the right to use the pathway, without taking note of the gift deed made by the plaintiff to use the pathway, the
Execution Court is proceeding further by appointing an Advocate Commissioner and a revision petitioner has filed E.A before the Execution Court contending that he has a right.
2/4
CRP(MD). No.3837 of 2025
decree and the scope of the Advocate Commissioner is only to ascertain the metes and bounds as per the schedule made in the plaint. The revision petitioner, who is the third party, has no right to disrupt the judgment and decree passed by the Court. According to the revision petitioner, he is the obstructor, his claim is that he has the right over the property to use the same, as a portion of the property in dispute was gifted by the plaintiff to the panchayat and such gift was on 07.01.2020, after the pronouncement of the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2018. Hence, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is having a right, the same shall be agitated in the manner known to law.
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
NCC : Yes/No 18.12.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet :Yes / No apd
3/4
CRP(MD). No.3837 of 2025
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J
apd
To
The Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District.
CRP(MD). No.3837 of 2025
18.12.2025
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Should the Subordinate Court be directed to number and dispose the third-party obstruction petition filed in the pending execution petition?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Davi
Vincent
Glory
Vincy Monisha
Vins Mon
Vibin
N.Senthilkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
