Madras High Court
CRP/6627/2026 of S.Anbazhagan Vs Manimegalai on 14 October 2026
CRP No. 6627 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6627 of 2026
CMP No. 28490 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012034922026}
S.Anbazhagan
...Petitioner
Vs
1. Manimegalai
2. Kumaraguru
...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, pleased to direct the learned District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur to set aside the order and decree of the E.A.No.3 of 2026 in E.P.No.7 of 2024 in O.S.No.202 of 2015 order dated 13.08.2026 by this Court by allowing the Revision Petition.
For Petitioner :
Mr.J.Venkatesaperumal
For Respondent:
Mr.R.Jaganathan
Caveator for R1
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
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court allowing the application for impleadment filed by the respondents.
2. The first respondent herein and two others filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.202 of 2015. The said suit was settled in the Lok Adalat, and a Lok Adalat award was passed allotting shares to the respective parties in the suit. As
CRP No. 6627 of 2026
per the terms of the Lok Adalat Award, the item number ‘6’ of the suit property was allotted to the share of the first respondent / third plaintiff. The petitioner, who is in possession of item number ‘6’ failed to hand over vacant possession to the first respondent, who was allotted with the item number ‘6’ in the Lok Adalat award. Hence, the Execution Petition was filed by the 1st respondent seeking delivery of possession of item number ‘6’ of the suit property. Now, an interim application has been filed by the 1st respondent and her husband / second respondent seeking impleadment of second respondent in the Execution Petition as against the petitioner mainly on the ground that the first respondent settled the subject property in favour of the second respondent on 02.09.2021. Taking note of it, the Executing Court allowed the interim application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Execution Petition filed by the first respondent in 2024 was not at all maintainable, when she had already settled the property in favour of the second respondent in the year 2021 itself. Therefore, the Executing Court ought not to have allowed the impleading application. It is also stated that suppressing the execution of the settlement deed, the first respondent filed the Execution Petition for delivery and the same was not at all maintainable.
CRP No. 6627 of 2026
4. The settlement deed executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the second respondent has been marked as Ex.R2. Therefore, there is no dispute that the first respondent settled the subject property in favour of the second respondent as early as 02.09.2021. Therefore, as the settlee of the property, the second respondent is entitled to maintain the Execution Petition for delivery against the petitioner herein. The Lok Adalat award was passed only on 07.09.2019. Even assuming the second respondent files a separate Execution Petition, as on today, the same is very well within limitation. When a separate Execution Petition filed by the second respondent is maintainable, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner by allowing the first respondent to implead the second respondent in the present Execution Petition filed by the first respondent. The order passed by the Executing Court prevents multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any serious error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rya / ep
CRP No. 6627 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J. rya / ep To The District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur CRP No. 6627 of 2026 CMP No. 28490 of 2026 14-10-2026