A. Sekaran (Died) 1. Malliga Vs a. Jebakumari

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to pass an order setting aside the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Honble X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in EA Sr No.74732 of 2025 in EP No.212 of 2023 in OS No.3178 of 2016.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): MR. B. SIVARAMAN For Respondent(s): MR.V.HARIBABU FOR R1 & R2

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Executing Court in E.A.

¶26

S.R. No.74732 of 2025, the judgment debtors have preferred the present revision.

¶27

Before the Executing Court, the petitioners prayed for dismissal of the Execution Petition on the ground that the boundaries of the suit property had not been properly described. According to them, the northern boundary ought to have been described as "Periyapalayathamman Koil Second Street", whereas the decree holder had erroneously mentioned it as "First Street". Therefore, they sought dismissal of the Execution Petition. However, the Executing Court dismissed the said application holding that the boundary description in the

¶28

Page2 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

CRP No. 106 of 2026

¶31

Execution Petition was in accordance with the suit schedule and that there was no material to show that the northern boundary was, in fact, the Second Street, as claimed by the judgment debtors. The Executing Court further held that such a contention could not be entertained in an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, especially when the judgment debtors had remained ex parte throughout the proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been filed.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs had not properly described the boundaries of the property and had erroneously mentioned the northern boundary as "Periyapalayathamman Koil First Street" instead of "Second Street". The respondents/plaintiffs had filed O.S. No.3178 of 2016 seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession, and the suit was decreed in their favour. Though an appeal in A.S. No.81 of 2019 was preferred, the appellants therein remained ex parte and the decree attained finality.

¶33

Admittedly, the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property under a sale deed dated 30.03.2009 and had obtained patta in respect of the same. The defendants, who are relatives of the plaintiffs, were permitted to occupy a portion of the property measuring about 200 sq.ft. Subsequently, they failed to vacate and hand over possession, necessitating the filing of the suit, which came to be decreed as prayed for. At the stage of execution, the judgment debtors

¶34

Page3 of 5

¶35

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

¶36

CRP No. 106 of 2026

¶37

have now raised an objection regarding the description of one of the boundaries. Such a contention, without any supporting material and after allowing the decree to attain finality, is not maintainable. The Executing Court has rightly rejected the application and the said order requires no interference.

¶38

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, being devoid of merits. The decree holders are entitled to work out their remedies in accordance with law. The Executing Court is directed to dispose of the Execution Petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

22-06-2026

¶40

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶41

MPA

¶42

To

¶43