Disposed¶22

V.Ranakrishnan v. Sikandar Trust Vijayapuram

Madras HC2 Apr 2026CRP/3172/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Madras High Court; Civil Revision Petition; CRP No.3172 of 2018; CMP No.18140 of 2018; Article 227 Constitution of India; Sub Court Tiruvarur; I.A.No.12/2017; unnumbered CMA 2017; ex parte order in execution petition; set aside ex parte order; delivery of possession 10.10.2018; execution petition closed 21.12.2018; no necessity to adjudicate; petition closed, no costs. Counsel: Ms.J. Jyothi for petitioner; Mr.M.Vijaya Mehanath for respondent. Parties: V.Ranakrishnan v. Sikandar Trust Vijayapuram (through Managing Trustee Mumtaj Begu and power agent K.Natarajan).

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Petition was closed with no costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP No.18140 of 2018) was also closed. ¶22

V.Ranakrishnan Vs Sikandar Trust Vijayapuram — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRP No. 3172 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

CRP No. 3172 of 2018 and CMP No.18140 of 2018

V.Ranakrishnan

Petitioner(s)

Sikandar Trust Vijayapuram Rep. by its Managing Trustee, Mumtaj Begu, Rep by her Power Agent Mr.K.Natarajan, Vijayapuram, Tiruvarur Taluk, Tiruvarur District.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 10.08.2018 made in I.A.No.12/2017 in Un numbered CMA No. /2017 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruvarur.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Ms.J. Jyothi For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Vijaya Mehanath

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

CRP No. 3172 of 2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Ms.J.Jyothi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of

¶19

the repeated communications to the petitioner, the petitioner had not given any instructions in the matter. In this regard, a memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the same is taken on record.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, in the execution petition, delivery was ordered and the possession was taken by the petitioner on 10.10.2018 and thereafter, the execution petition stood closed on 21.12.2018.

¶21

Since the execution petition itself had been closed after recording the delivery of possession, and the same has not been challenged by the petitioner, there is no necessity to adjudicate the present petition, which is arising out of the petition to set aside the ex parte order passed in the execution petition.

¶22

In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel on either side, this Civil Revision Petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶23

02-04-2026

¶24

Jd Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

CRP No. 3172 of 2018

¶28

K.KUMARESH BABU J.

¶29