Partly allowed

P.Mani v. v.Geetha

Madras HC9 Feb 2026CRP/6306/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice P.B. Balaji dismissed the Civil Revision Petition challenging an order for recovery of possession. The Court noted the petitioner failed to seek interim stay under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC despite pending appeal. An indulgence was granted to keep the warrant in abeyance for two weeks to pursue the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Executing Court directed to keep warrant in abeyance for two weeks to enable filing of appeal.

P.Mani Vs v.Geetha — Property and Title | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRP No. 6306 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

CRP No. 6306 of 2025 and CMP No.31267 of 2025

¶7

P.Mani

¶8

Geetha

Petitioner(s)

V.Geetha

Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s): M/s. K.Dhananjayan

¶14

For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar

¶15

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 17.10.2025 passed in E.P. No.120 of 2023 in O.S. No.71 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Poonamallee.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

CRP No. 6306 of 2025

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are facing the

¶22

risk of being thrown out from the property and an appeal in A.S.No.647 of 2025 is

¶23

pending and the appeal is ready for arguments. The learned counsel would therefore seek for some interim protection.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent, however state that despite preferring appeal before this court and also taking out 2 miscellaneous petitions pending appeal, the petitioner never chose to seek for interim stay under Order 41 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code. He would therefore state that there is no merit in the revision and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

The petitioner has not even attempted to seek interim stay of the decree for recovery of possession passed by the trial court with the pending appeal before this

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

CRP No. 6306 of 2025

¶30

Court. Therefore, there is absolutely no infirmity in the order of the executing Court which is now challenged by way of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India warranting interference.

¶31

I do not find any merit in the revision. However, in order to give one indulgence to the petitioner, it is made clear that the executing court shall keep the warrant in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable the petitioner to move this Court in A.S.No.647 of 2025 and seek any interim protection, failing which, there shall be no impediment for the executing court to proceed with the matter.

¶32

With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

09.02.2026

¶34

sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To

¶35

The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

CRP No. 6306 of 2025

¶39

P.B.BALAJI.,J

¶40

¶41

CRP No. 6306 of 2025

¶42

09.02.2026

¶43

¶44

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

P.Mani v. v.Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mani v. v.Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Shanmuga Bharathivel Vs Prema

R.S.Sathvi Vs K.Poorna Gurunath

Ethiraj Vs Jagadeesh

Vasanthakumar Vs G.Sivakumar

A.Shadab Vs R.Shakira Begum

S. Annadurai Vs M.Parthasarathy