Madras High Court
CRP/6695/2026 of Kumar Vs Dhanalakshmi on 16 October 2026
CRP No. 6695 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6695 of 2026
CMP No. 28826 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012247062026}
Kumar
S/o.Dhakshnamoorthy,
No.6, Victoria Street, Thiruvennainallur, Thirukkovilur Taluk, Villuppuram District
...Petitioner(s)
Vs
Dhanalakshmi
S/o. Murugan,
Muthaiah Nagar, Emappur village,
Thirukkovilur Taluk, Villupuram District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 28.08.2026 passed in E.P.No.32/2024 in O.S.No.1/2015 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram and allow the above C.R.P.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s. D Jeevitha
for E Meena
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court, allowing the Execution Petition filed by the respondent/ decree holder seeking execution of the sale deed, pursuant to the decree for specific performance.
CRP No. 6695 of 2026
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein/plaintiff obtained a decree for specific performance against the petitioner/defendant in O.S No. 1 of 2015. The decree was passed on 07.08.2018. Thereafter, the respondent filed an Execution Petition seeking execution of the decree for specific performance in E.P No. 32 of 2024. Since there is no stay by the Appellate Court, the executing court, by the impugned order, has allowed the execution petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that by producing the invalid sale agreement, the respondent/ decree holder is trying to take away the petitioner’s property, and therefore the executing court ought not have allowed the Execution Petition filed by the respondent. It is also stated by him that the description of the property has not been properly given in the Execution Petition.
4. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed an execution petition, pursuant to the decree for specific performance obtained by her in the original suit in O.S.No.1 of 2015. The petitioner is not entitled to raise the points, which he is entitled to raise by way of an appeal, challenging the decree. As on date, the petitioner has not filed any appeal and obtained any stay from the appellate court. When the decree of specific performance is operating against the petitioner, the executing court has rightly allowed the execution petition filed by
CRP No. 6695 of 2026
the respondent/decree holder and hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rya / mst To:- The II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram
CRP No. 6695 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J. rya / mst CRP No. 6695 of 2026 CMP No. 28826 of 2026 16-10-2026