Madras High Court
CRP/4625/2026 of M.Subramanian Vs Ponnaya on 7 October 2026
CRP No. 4625 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 4625 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011720742026}
M.Subramanian
S/o. Muthusamy Gounder,
No.3/37/E-7, Sundariyammal Colony,
Old Edappadi Road, Sankari Town and Taluk, Salem District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Ponnaya, W/o. Natesan,
Thattankadu, Kidaiyur,
Devannagoundanur Village,
Sankari Taluk, Salem District.
2. Velumani, S/o. Natesan,
Thattankadu, Kidaiyur,
Devannagoundanur Village,
Sankari Taluk, Salem District.
3. Mani @ Amudha, W/o. Periannan,
Alathureddipalayam,
Alathur Post, Sankari Taluk,
Salem District.
P.Komarasamy Gounder (Died)
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 24.06.2026 passed in REA No.3 of 2026 in REA NO.32 of 2010 in REP 10 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif, Sankari, Salem District.
CRP No. 4625 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. M.Sudhan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Jayaprakash
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 Executing Court, allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 to 3/ Judgement Debtors seeking to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased Decree holder, namely Komarasamy Gounder in the REA.32 of 2010 filed under Section 47 of CPC.
2. It is not in dispute that one Komarasamy Gounder filed a suit in O.S.No.482 of 1995 for recovery of money against the respondents 1 to 3 and the said suit was decreed on 26.09.2003. Hence, the said Komarasamy Gounder filed an execution petition in R.E.P.No.10 of 2004. The property of the judgment debtors were brought to sale and the petitioner herein was the successful bidder. Challenging the auction sale in favour of the petitioner, the respondents 1 to 3 filed an application in REA No.32 of 2010 under Section 47 of CPC to set aside the sale. When the said application was under consideration, the sole decree holder, namely, Komarasamy Gounder passed away. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 have filed an application in REA No.3 of 2026 seeking to re-open the REA No.32 of 2010, which was reserved for orders to implead the
CRP No. 4625 of 2026 legal heirs of the deceased Komarasamy Gounder and to advance arguments further. The said application was allowed by the Executing Court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/auction purchaser would submit that the property has been purchased by the petitioner and therefore, the deceased decree holder has no interest in the subject matter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after sale of the property in favour of the petitioner, the legal heirs of the deceased Komarasamy Gounder /decree holder are not necessary parties and hence, the executing court ought not have allowed the petition to reopen REA No.32 of 2010 in order to implead the legal heirs of the deceased decree holder.
4. It is seen from the typed set of papers that in REA No.32 of 2010, the judgment debtors sought to set aside the sale effected in favour of the petitioner. In case, that application is allowed and the sale in favour of the petitioner is set aside, certainly, it will have direct impact on the rights of decree holder, as the amounts deposited by the auction purchaser need to be dealt with. Therefore, the presence of the legal heirs of the deceased decree holder is absolutely necessary to decide REA No.32 of 2010. The executing court has rightly appreciated the said position and allowed the re-open petition in REA No.3 of 2026 filed by the respondents 1 to 3 to re-open the REA No.32
CRP No. 4625 of 2026 of 2010 and implead the legal heirs of the deceased Komarasamy Gounder. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the executing Court.
5. It is seen from the impugned order that the suit was of the year 1995 and the execution petition was filed as early as in the year 2004. Taking into consideration the long pendency of execution petition, I am inclined to direct the executing court to dispose of REA No.32 of 2010, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. With the above directions, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The District Munsif, Sankari, Salem District.
CRP No. 4625 of 2026 S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 4625 of 2026 07-10-2026