CRP/3243/2025 of RAJALAKSHMI Vs OJAS Finance on 25 September 2026

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed to set aside the Docket order dated 07.04.2025 in E.A.CFR.No.11362 of 2025 in E.P.No.931 of 2016 in O.S.No.45 of 1994, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Saravanakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Karthikeibalan, learned counsel for the contesting 1st respondent.

3. In fact orders were also reserved in the matter, but subsequently a mention was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he intended to place additional submissions based on the Encumbrance Certificate produced, after serving a copy on the counsel for the 1st respondent. In fact, on the very same day, a copy of the Encumbrance Certificate was also filed before the Court. In order to enable the petitioner to make further submissions, the matter was posted on 10.09.2026. Strangely, on 10.09.2026, a new counsel represented the matter and stating that she is proposing to file change of vakalat for the petitioner. In view of the undesirable conduct of the petitioner by changing counsel, after in fact orders were reserved, I refused to entertain the request for any further time and reserved the matter for orders, especially considering the fact that elaborate submissions had already been made.

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 10:48:28 am )

4. The revision petitioner is a third party to the suit, as well as the execution proceedings. The case of the revision petitioner is that he has purchased the suit property for a valuable sale consideration from the respondents 2 to 4 under a registered sale deed dated 10.03.2016. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner obtained an Encumbrance Certificate prior to the purchase and the said Encumbrance Certificate did not reflect any encumbrance, especially, the sale deed executed by the Court in favour of the 1st respondent, pursuant to a decree for specific performance. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore contend that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for value, who has been put in possession of the suit property and hasty steps have been taken by the 1st respondent to dispossess the petitioner from the suit property.

5. In fact, the petitioner filed an application in E.A.CFR.No.11362 of 2025 in E.P.No.931 of 2016, invoking Order XXI Rule 101 of CPC seeking a prayer to record his obstruction in the execution petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore state that when he was totally unaware of the earlier proceedings between the 1st respondent and the respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner ought to have been given a fair opportunity to contest the execution proceedings by the Executing Court permitting the petitioner to obstruct to the execution of the delivery. He would therefore state that the

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 10:48:28 am )

Executing Court clearly fell in error in dismissing the application even at the stage of numbering of the application.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting 1st respondent would state that the petitioner is not a bonafide purchaser and in support of the claim of the petitioner that the Court sale in favour of the 1st respondent was not reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate, the learned counsel has also filed a copy of the Encumbrance Certificate, which reflects the Court sale executed in favour of the 1st respondent. He would further state that the Encumbrance Certificate that has been relied on by the petitioner is only a view EC option that is available in the website of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department, where it is possible to pinpoint and reflect only transactions that need to be reflected in the EC applied for, unlike a regular Encumbrance Certificate which would carry all encumbrances during the period for which the Encumbrance Certificate is sought for. He would therefore state that the petitioner cannot get any better right that the respondents 2 to 4 and he is bound by the decree passed against the respondents 2 to

4. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on the decision of this Court in CRP.No.3587 of 2023, which is in fact between the respondents 2 to 4 and the 1st respondent, where the respondents 2 to 4 challenged the dismissal of E.A.No.5 of 2022 filed by them, questioning the maintainability of the execution petition itself. The

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 10:48:28 am )

said revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 22.02.2024, directing the execution petition to be disposed of within a period of four months. Despite such specific direction, the petitioners have managed to drag on the execution petition for more than 2 ½ years.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side

8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the Encumbrance Certificate that has been relied on by the petitioner is a truncated Encumbrance Certificate and not a regular Encumbrance Certificate which would reflect all encumbrances during the relevant period of time. In any event, the mere fact that an encumbrance is not reflected in the certificate issued by the Registration Department, is not a ground available to a person who claims under the judgment debtors, that too, as a bonafide purchaser.

9. Admittedly, the 1st respondent filed a suit for specific performance and obtained a decree in its favour way back on 14.09.1994. As late as in 2023, the judgment debtors have participated in the execution proceedings and filed execution applications to defeat the execution of the decree in favour of the respondent. In fact, admittedly, the Court has

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 10:48:28 am )

executed the sale deed and registered the same in favour of the 1st respondent in Doc.No.1580 of 1999, which is long prior to the purchase made by the petitioner. It is only when the second execution petition was laid for taking delivery of possession that further applications came to be filed by the judgment debtors and all such applications ended with dismissal orders. Thereafter, the present application has been taken out by the petitioner claiming to be a bonafide purchaser for value.

10. Even assuming for a moment that the Court sale deed was not reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate, even then it will not give a right to the petitioner to claim to be a bonafide purchaser, which defense will not be available in execution proceedings. The revision petitioner is therefore clearly bound by the decree passed against his vendors and he is obligated to satisfy the decree in favour of the 1st respondent. In fact Order XXI Rule 102 is a clear bar for the petitioner to invoke the obstruction route available under Order XX Rule 97 of CPC. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and consequently, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Considering the fact that the suit was decreed way back on 14.09.1994 and the execution petition itself has been filed in the year 2016, I direct the Executing Court to execute the decree and dispose of

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 10:48:28 am )

E.P.No.931 of 2016, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 25.09.2026 Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata To The II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 10:48:28 am )

P.B.BALAJI.

J, ata Pre-delivery order made in CRP.No.3243 of 2025 25.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 10:48:28 am )