CRP/6666/2026 of Seyyadu Ali Fathima Vs Sekar on 15 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, seeking reception of additional counter.

2. The 1st respondent herein/ plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.143 of 2007 against the sole defendant, namely, S.R.K.Mariyam Beevi (deceased). The 1st respondent obtained a decree for injunction, restraining the sole defendant from vacating him from the suit property, except due process of law. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.97 of 2020 against the defendant and other 5 persons, including the petitioner, on the ground that they violated the decree and demolished the Mill structure found in the suit property by using Poclain on 29.05.2020. Though the execution petition was filed in the year 2020, the petitioner herein filed counter only in the year 2025. Now, the main Execution Petition is posted for cross examination of PW1 and at this stage, the petitioner, who was arrayed as 2nd respondent in the E.P. has filed the instant application seeking reception of additional counter along with certain documents. The said application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner wanted to put forth certain new averments which was omitted in the original counter filed by him and hence, the instant application has been filed to receive additional counter along with certain documents, however, it was erroneously dismissed by the Executing Court.

4. The Execution Petition has been filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff mainly on the ground that the defendant and the petitioner, who is none other than the daughter of sole defendant along with others had demolished the Mill Structure found in the suit property, thereby violated the decree for injunction. The petitioner already filed counter opposing the execution petition and now she sought to file additional counter, referring certain collateral proceedings. The reference for the collateral proceedings mentioned in the additional counter are not relevant to the issues to be decided in present execution petition. The first question to be decided in the execution petition is whether the execution petition is maintainable against the petitioner, who was not arrayed as defendant in the suit. The second question is whether the petitioner, in collusion with the defendant/ judgment debtor and others had violated the decree. The facts narrated by the petitioner in the additional counter are not germane to the issue involved in the execution petition.

5. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the execution petition was filed in the year 2020 and the counter was filed in the year 2025 only. When the enquiry in the execution petition has begun, in order to stall the proceedings, the petitioner herein wanted to file additional counter with unnecessary averments, which are not germane to the issue involved in the execution petition. The Executing Court has rightly appreciated the above said facts and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking reception of additional counter. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court.

6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The District Munsif, Panruti.

S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 6666 of 2026 15-10-2026