Dismissed¶28

D.S.J. Hariharan (Died) 1. A.S. Hariharan, v. G.Prakasam

Madras HC28 Apr 2026CMP/9603/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court order on vacating stay of execution of a decree for mandatory injunction while the second appeal (admitted on substantial questions of law) is pending; balance of convenience held in favour of the stay; CMP No. 9603 of 2026 in SA No.175 of 2026 dismissed and stay in CMP No.4790 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026 made absolute; second appeal listed for final disposal on 04.01.2027; S. Sounthar, J.; no statutes or precedents cited; no costs or amounts awarded.

What did the court decide?

Civil miscellaneous petition to vacate the stay dismissed; stay order passed in CMP No.4790 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026 made absolute; second appeal directed to be listed for final disposal on 04.01.2027. ¶28

D.S.J. Hariharan (Died) 1. A.S. Hariharan, Vs G.Prakasam — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the stay of execution of the decree for mandatory injunction granted in CMP No.4790 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026 should be vacated so as to permit the decree holders to execute the decree while the second appeal is pending.

¶23-24

Court's answer

When a second appeal has been admitted on substantial questions of law, the decree holder cannot be allowed to execute a decree for mandatory injunction without the second appeal being heard, and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the stay.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The petition to vacate the stay cannot be considered at this stage, as the stay operates only in respect of execution of the decree for mandatory injunction; accordingly the civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed and the stay order in CMP No.4790 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026 is made absolute.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J.), CMP No. 9603 of 2026 in SA No.175 of 2026, order dated 28-04-2026: The decree holders, described in the order as the petitioners/plaintiffs under a decree for mandatory injunction, sought to vacate the stay of execution granted by the High Court in CMP No.4790 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026, the second appeal having been admitted on substantial questions of law. Held that when a second appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law, the decree holder cannot be allowed to execute a decree for mandatory injunction without the second appeal being heard, and the balance of convenience favours the stay. Since the stay operated only in respect of execution of the decree for mandatory injunction, the petition to vacate the stay could not be considered at that stage: the civil miscellaneous petition was dismissed and the stay order was made absolute. The second appeal was directed to be listed for final disposal on 04.01.2027.

¶1

CMP No. 9603 of 2026 in SA No.175 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CMP No. 9603 of 2026 in SA No.175 of 2026

¶7

D.S.J. Hariharan (Died)

¶8

1. A.S. Hariharan,, S/o. D.S.J. Hariharan, 1/37-B, North Parade Road, St. Thomas Mount, Alandur, Chennai -600 016.

¶9

Regina (Died)

¶10

Betsy Balance, D/o.D.S.J. Hariharan, 1/37-B, North Parade Road, St. Thomas Mount, Alandur, Chennai -600 016.

¶11

Jessy Christopher, D/o. D.S.J. Hariharan, No.1/37B, North Parade Road, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai -600 016.

¶12

Anitha Chelliah, D/o. D.S.J. Hariharan, No.1/37B, North Parade Road, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai -600 016.

¶13

..Appellant(s)

¶14

¶15

G.Prakasam, S/o. Govindaswamy Naicker, No.36-G, North Parade Road, St. Thomas Mount, Alandur, Chennai -600 016.

¶16

..Respondent(s)

¶17

Prayer: This petition is filed to Vacate the stay granted in CMP.No.4790 of 2026 in SA.No.175 of 2026 and dismiss the second appeal with exemplary costs.

¶18

__________ Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

CMP No. 9603 of 2026 in SA No.175 of 2026

¶21

For Appellant(s): Mr. Praveen Alexander For Respondent(s): Mr.T.M.Mano

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to vacate the stay

¶24

order granted by this court in CMP No.4790 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026.

¶25

It is seen from the typed set of papers that the second appeal has been

¶26

admitted on the substantial questions of law. The petitioners herein/ plaintiffs obtained a decree for mandatory injunction and the execution of the same has been stayed by this court. When the second appeal is admitted on substantial question of law, without hearing the second appeal, the decree holder cannot be allowed to execute the decree for mandatory injunction. The balance of convenience is in favour of granting stay. Hence, this petition to vacate the stay filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs cannot be considered at this stage, as the stay

¶27

is only in respect of execution of decree for mandatory injunction.

¶28

Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed and the stay order passed by this court in CMP No.4790 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026 is made absolute.

¶29