Madras High Court
CRP/2274/2023 of P Kanagaraj Vs Mohana Priya on 8 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 2274 of 2023 and
CMP No.13799 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA010991312023}
P Kanagaraj, S/o Kuppa Gounder @ Perumal, No.498/1, Kumaran Nagar, Alagapuram, Periyapudur, Salem 636 016.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Mohana Priya, D/o Ramar, Door No.7,
Rathinapuri 1st street, Gorimedu,
Salem 636 008.
2. P Ramar, S/o Pallikoodathan Gounder,
No.7, Rathinapuri 1st street, Gorimedu,
Salem 636 008.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Orders dated 14.03.2023 passed in EA No.7 of 2022 in EA
No.5 of 2021 in EP No.196 of 2016 in OS No.65 of 2011 on the file of the I
Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem District.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. P.Jagadeesan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R. Asokan- 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 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Execution Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking joint trial of the petition filed by him in REA No.5 of 2021 in REP No.196 of 2019 in O.S.No.65 of 2011 along with the suit filed by him in O.S.No.621 of 2020 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction.
2. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent herein/ plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 2011 for specific performance and obtained a decree against the father of the petitioner. The petitioner claims right over the suit property under the Will executed by his father, dated 18.11.2018, who suffered a decree for specific performance at the hands of the 1st respondent. The petitioner has no independent legs to oppose the execution of the decree. In any event, the petitioner filed an application in REA No.5 of 2021 in REP No.196 of 2019 under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.621 of 2020 seeking declaration that the decree passed in O.S.No.65 of 2011 is null and void and also the sale deed executed by the Court in favour of the judgment debtor is null and void. Now, the petitioner filed the present application in REA No.7 of 2022 seeking to tag the application in REA No.5 of 2021 along with the suit filed by him in O.S.No.621 of 2020 for joint trial.
3. Order 21 Rule 101 CPC clearly says that all the disputes between the parties to the application under Order 21 Rule 97 and their representatives shall be decided by the executing court and not by a separate suit. In such circumstances, the REA No.5 of 2021 filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC need not be tagged along with the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.621 of 2020, that too after filing of the execution petition. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court.
4. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem District.
S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 2274 of 2023 08-10-2026