CRP/6143/2026 of Bhavani Vs Munisamy on 24 September 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.T.M.Naveen, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.Hariharan, learned counsel for the respondents/caveator.

2. The proceedings pertain to execution proceedings initiated by the respondents to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.154 of 2012. The decree in O.S.No.154 of 2012 admittedly attained finality with the judgment passed by this Court in A.S.No.380 of 2018 on 19.01.2021. The first respondent/plaintiff has been granted the following decree:-

DECREE “ 1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with modification.

2. that by declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of “B” schedule property to an extent of 127.50 sq.ft As shown as b e c yellow marked portion in Ex.C.4.

3. that the defendant is directed to handover the said portion to the plaintiff after demolishing and removing the construction upon the area shown as b e c yellow marked portion in the Ex.C.4.

4. that the report and sketch of the Advocate Commissioner marked as Ex.C.4 shall form part and parcel of the decree.

5. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.75,384.25/-(Rupees Seventy five thousand three hundred and eighty four and twenty five paise only) towards costs of the suit.”

3. The said decree was put to execution and in the execution petition, the revision petitioner raised an objection that the respondent/decree holder is attempting to indulge in excessive execution over and above his entitlement. An Advocate

Commissioner was appointed by the Executing Report to file a Report and based on the Report, an order came to be passed by the Executing Court on 13.04.2022 in E.A.No.12 of 2022. The revision petitioner preferred a revision before this Court in CRP (NPD) No.1745 of 2022 which came to be disposed on 13.06.2022 with a direction to the same Advocate Commissioner who had earlier inspected and filed a Report to once again inspect the property and file a Report before the Executing Court and based on the said Report, the Executing Court was directed to dispose of the execution proceedings.

4. Now it is brought to my notice by Mr.T.M.Naveen, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that subsequent to the order passed by this Court on 13.06.2022, the earlier Advocate Commissioner re-visited the property and filed a fresh Report which also enclosed a sketch in Ex.X.1. Learned counsel also brings to my notice that the Advocate Commissioner has been examined as C.W.1 in chief and cross. In fact, both the decree holder as well as judgment debtor have cross examined the Advocate Commissioner. Thereafter, it appears that no further findings or orders have been passed based on the evidence of the Advocate Commissioner recorded at the instance of both the petitioner as well as the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, would however state that it is only the application filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Court has been dismissed by the Executing Court and the Execution Petition is posted for enquiry tomorrow.

6. Considering the fact that the Advocate Commissioner has already visited the property twice and there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the decreetal property, which is 127.5 sq.ft, which is clearly demarcated by boundaries on all sides and there are also two Reports filed by the Advocate Commissioner with the aid of the Surveyor concerned.

7. The petitioner is now seeking to compel the respondents/decree holders to sell 19.5 sq.ft, which, according to the petitioner, is the property which is alone required to be demolished and handed over to the respondents/decree holders.) However, it is the contention of the respondents/decree holders that there is still substantial construction that exists over the 127.5 sq.ft and the same is to be demolished.

8. In view of the above, I am inclined to dispose of this revision, on the following terms:-

(i) It is needless to state that the respondents/decree holders are entitled to execute the decree in terms of Ex.C.4 Plan, which sets out the actual decreetal portion of 127.5 sq.ft.

(ii) The Advocate Commissioner’s Report and her evidence in chief and cross, recorded on 08.01.2026 and 22.01.2026 are also be considered by the Executing Court before passing any further orders.

(iii) In the event of any construction existing over the said 127.5 sq.ft, then the revision petitioner is obliged to remove the same either voluntarily or the same would be removed/demolished forcibly by court process, with the assistance of the Court Bailiff.

(iv) The Executing Court shall ensure that the decretal property alone shall be subject matter of execution, for which, necessary directions shall be issued to the Bailiff and goes to the spot for effecting delivery and he shall be entitled to take the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor to identify the disputed 127.5 sq.ft.

(v) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.09.2026 Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order sr To The III Additional District Court, Puducherry

P.B.BALAJI.,J sr CRP No. 6143 of 2026 24.09.2026