Dismissed¶23

S.Sambandan v. D.Aranganayagi

Madras HC23 Feb 2026CRP/912/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Article 227 of Constitution of India; Order XXI Rule 97 CPC; striking off execution application; third-party obstructor; execution proceedings for recovery of possession; E.A. No. 6 of 2025; E.P. No. 103 of 2010; O.S. No. 212 of 1993; Subordinate Judge Poonamalle; decree-holder plaintiff; success up to Supreme Court; alleged collusion with judgment debtors; recording of evidence; two-month disposal direction to Executing Court; no costs; Madras High Court; P.B. Balaji.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; Executing Court directed to dispose of E.A. No. 6 of 2025 on merits and in accordance with law within two months of receipt of a copy of the order; order passed with no costs. ¶23

S.Sambandan Vs D.Aranganayagi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; Executing Court directed to dispose of E.A. No. 6 of 2025 on merits and in accordance with law within two months of receipt of a copy of the order; order passed with no costs.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be entertained to strike off E.A. No. 6 of 2025, an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC by a third-party obstructor in the course of execution proceedings.

¶20

Court's answer

Applications filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC are governed by a separate and specific adjudication procedure prescribed under Order XXI, which may also require recording of evidence.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, this Court found it inappropriate to entertain the Article 227 revision seeking striking off of the third-party obstructor's Rule 97 application.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; in view of the suit's 1993 vintage and nearly three decades of litigation, the Executing Court is directed to dispose of E.A. No. 6 of 2025 on merits and in accordance with law within two months of receipt of a copy of the order, with no costs.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (P.B. Balaji, J.), C.R.P. No. 912 of 2026, decided 23.02.2026 — The revision petitioner, the plaintiff who claimed to have succeeded in the litigation up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, sought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off E.A. No. 6 of 2025 in E.P. No. 103 of 2010 in O.S. No. 212 of 1993 (Subordinate Judge, Poonamalle), an application filed by a third-party obstructor under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC during execution proceedings for recovery of possession. Held: a separate and specific procedure is prescribed under Order XXI for adjudication of Rule 97 applications, which may also require recording of evidence; hence the Court did not find it appropriate to entertain the revision and dismissed it, directing the Executing Court to dispose of the E.A. on merits and in accordance with law within two months. No costs.

¶1

C.R.P.No.912 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 23.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

C.R.P.No.912 of 2026

¶7

S.Sambandan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

D.Aranganayagi

¶10

Deivasigamani ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to strike off the E.A.No.6 of 2025 in E.P.No.103 of 2010 in O.S.No.212 of 1993 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Poonamalle and to allow the said application with cost throughout.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Seshachari

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

C.R.P.No.912 of 2026 2.The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who seeks to strike off

¶18

E.A. No. 6 of 2025 filed by a third-party obstructor in the course of execution proceedings initiated for recovery of possession of the property.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has succeeded in the litigation upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and that the third-party obstructor is acting in collusion with the judgment debtors with a view to protract the proceedings and deprive the petitioner of the fruits of the decree.

¶20

The application in E.A. No. 6 of 2025 has been filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. A separate and specific procedure is prescribed under Order XXI for adjudication of applications filed under Rule 97, which may also require recording of evidence. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it appropriate to entertain the present Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for striking off the said application filed by the third-party obstructor.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P.No.912 of 2026 5. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶24

However, considering that the suit is of the year 1993 and the petitioner has been litigating for nearly three decades, the Executing Court is directed to dispose of E.A. No. 6 of 2025 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶25

23.02.2026

¶26

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order kv

¶27

¶28

The Subordinate Court, Poonamalle.

¶29

3/4

¶30

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

¶31