Madras High Court
CRP/542/2026 of Noornnisa Begam Alias Noorbi Vs Govindan on 13 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.542 of 2026
& CMP.No.2875 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010143912026}
Noornnisa Begam (a) Noorbi
W/o Tajudeen @ Ravichandran,
No.12, Gubort Street,
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,
Orleanpet, Puducherry.
...Petitioner
Vs
1. Govindan, S/o.Muthukannu,
No.27, South Perumal Koil Street,
Thiruvathigai, Panruti,
Cuddalore District.
2. Mohandoss
S/o. Dharmalingam,
No.21/4C, VOC Street,
Panruti, Cuddalore District.
3. Ravichandran
S/o. Perumal Kounder,
No.1/148, River Street,
Karappattu Village,
Eruvelpattu Post,
Ulundurpet Taluk,
Kallakurichi District.
4. Radhakrishnan
S/o. Pazhanisamy,
No.37, Old Cuddalore
Main Road, Thiruvathigai,
Panruti, Cuddalore District.
5. Abdul Rasulkhan
S/o. Abdul Majit Khan,
No.15C, Cuddalore Road,
Panruti, Cuddalore District.
6. Shamsunisa Begum
W/o. Kadhar,
Throwpathi Amman Koil Street,
Ariyankuppam Commune,
Puducherry.
7. Sharbunisa Begum,
W/o. Noor Mohamad,
No.10, Periya Erusampalayam Road,
Kannamal Thottam,
Ariyanguppam Commune,
Puducherry.
Respondents 5 -7 are
now temporarily Residing
at No.64 Arunthathipuram,
Periya Erusampalayam Road,
Ariyankuppam, Puducherry.
8. Mabubasha
S/o. Sheik Moideen,
Permanent Residence
at No.29, Alim Rahmadh Nagar,
Melapalayam, Ambai Road,
Palayankottai, Thirunelveli.
Temporarily Residing at
No.75, Anthony Nagar,
Beedi Thozhilalar Colony,
Melapalayam, Tirunelveli-5.
9. Jahir Hussain, S/o. Mabubasha,
Permanent Residence
at No.29, Alim Rahmadh Nagar,
Melapalayam, Ambai Road,
Palayankottai, Thirunelveli.
Temporarily Residing at.
No.75, Anthony Nagar,
Beedi Thozhilalar Colony,
Melapalayam, Tirunelveli-5.
10. Abdul Kareem, S/o. Mabubasha,
Permanent Residing
at No.29, Alim Rahmadh Nagar,
Melapalayam, Ambai Road,
Palayankottai, Thirunelveli.
Temporarily Residing at
No.75, Anthony Nagar,
Beedi Thozhilalar Colony,
Melapalayam, Tirunelveli-5.
...Respondents
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 20.11.2025 passed in I.A.
No.870 of 2025 in O.S.No.404 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner:
Mr.R.Sunilkumar
For Respondents:
Mrs.Hema Sampath, SC for
Mrs.R.Meenal for R1 to R4
R5 to R8 : Not ready in notice
R9 & R10 : Served & No appearance
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 has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 20.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.870 of 2025 in O.S.No.404 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the petitioner/D7 under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to stay all further proceedings in the said suit till the disposal of A.S.No.18 of 1998 and S.A.No.618 of 2005, both on the file of this Court and the final decree proceedings in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.66 of 1996 on the file of the Sub- Court, Panruti, came to be dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/D7 and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4/ plaintiffs.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. Respondents 1 to 4, who are the plaintiffs, filed the said suit seeking for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29.8.2023. Originally, there were six defendants and the petitioner/D7 was impleaded as the 7th defendant in the said suit vide order dated 29.4.2024 in I.A.No.115 of 2024.
5. In the said suit, the petitioner/D7 filed the said application under Section 10 of the CPC seeking to stay all further proceedings in the said suit mainly on the ground that the suit property was already a subject matter of dispute in a first appeal and a second appeal, both on the file of this Court and the final decree proceedings in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.66 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Court, Panruti; and that respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs were seeking for specifically enforcing the sale agreement dated 29.8.2023, which defined the suit property specifically with boundaries and whereas the suit property is yet to be divided by metes and bounds in view of the pending proceedings between the parties.
6. However, the Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that the requirements under Section 10 of the CPC were not satisfied in this case since the petitioner/D7 has not filed any suit against respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs nor the respondents have filed any suit against the petitioner/D7. Aggrieved by the said order, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.
7. The entire crux of the dispute revolves around the agreement of sale, which was stated to have been executed on 29.8.2023 specifically describing the suit property with boundaries whereas the suit property is yet to be divided by metes and bounds due to the pendency of the final decree proceedings and other related proceedings before this Court.
8. It is not necessary to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 404 of 2023 for the simple reason that respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs are seeking to enforce the agreement of sale dated 29.8.2023, which was stated to have been entered into with defendants 1 to 6 and ultimately, by virtue of this agreement of sale, the undivided share, which the defendants are entitled to in the suit property, becomes the subject matter and if, ultimately, even if a decree is passed, respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs will step into the shoes of the defendants in the final decree proceedings and get their specific share only after the suit property is divided by metes and bounds and the petitioner/D7 cannot have any qualms regarding the same.
9. In the light of the above discussions, even though the suit property has been described with boundaries pursuant to the agreement of sale, it is made clear that the subject matter will continue to be an undivided share belonging to the defendants in the said suit and that in the event of respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs succeeding in the said suit, they will also wait for the allotment of specific property in the final decree proceedings.
10. The above civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms and the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 passed in I.A.No. 870 of 2025 in O.S.No.404 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore is sustained with the above reasoning. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. 13-10-2026 To The Principal District Court, Cuddalore. RS
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.542 of 2026& CMP.No.2875 of 2026 13-10-2026