Madras High Court
CRP/6158/2026 of Aarthi Vs N.Rajendran (Deceased)1.M.Gajendran on 24 September 2026
CRP Nos. 6158 and 6159 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-09-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP Nos. 6158 and 6159 of 2026
and CMP Nos.26644 and 26648 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012300952026}
1. Aarthi
W/o Muthukumar, No.22, Padavattam
Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai- 600 018.
2. Jesintha
No.22, Padavattam Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai- 600 018.
Petitioners in both the revisions
Vs
1. N.Rajendran (Deceased)1.M.Gajendran,
S/o Munusamy, residing at No.22,
Padavattam Street, Abhiramapuram,
Chennai- 600 018.
2.R.Manivanan
S/o Late Rajendran, residing at No.22,
Padavattam Street, Abhiramapuram,
Chennai- 600 018.
3.R.Shanthi,
W/o Late Rajendran, residing at No.22,
Padavattam Street, Abhiramapuram,
Chennai- 600 018.
4.R.Manimaran,
S/o Late M.Rajendran, residing at No.22,
CRP Nos. 6158 and 6159 of 2026
Padavattam Street, Abhiramapuram,
Chennai- 600 018.
5.M.Mala
D/o Lat M.Rajendran, S/o Munusamy,
residing at No.22, Padavattam Street,
Abhiramapuram, Chennai- 600 018.
Respondent(s)
Revisions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 16.09.2026 in EP Nos.1006 and 1004 of 2006 in O.S.No.1946 of 2017 by Hon’ble X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Dalit Tiger C.Ponnusamy
For Respondents:
Mr.T.C.Harinath
For Mrs.S.Anitha
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.
COMMON ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the delivery passed in E.P Nos.1006 and 1004 of 2026. The grievance of the petitioners is that the first appeal in A.S.No.230 of 2025, challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1946 of 2017, is ripe for arguments and taking advantage of the fact that there was no interim stay granted in I.A.No.1 of 2025, the Executing Court has now proceeded to order delivery.
CRP Nos. 6158 and 6159 of 2026
3. Per se, I am unable to find any fault with the approach of the Executing Court. Admittedly, when there is no order of stay granted by the higher forum, there is nothing wrong on the part of the Executing Court to have proceeded with the Execution Petition. However, considering that the respondents have also entered appearance and the appeal is ripe for arguments, it is suffice to dispose of the civil revision petitions in the following manner:-
(i) The order of delivery passed by the Executing Court on 16.09.2026 is confirmed.
(ii) However, the Warrant shall not be executed for a period of six weeks.
(iii) The first Appellate Court viz., X Additional City Civil Court, Chennai shall dispose of A.S.No.230 of 2025 within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) Subject to the result of A.S.No.230 of 2025, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the Warrant in their favour.
CRP Nos. 6158 and 6159 of 2026 P.B.BALAJI.,J sr No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 24.09.2026 Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order sr To
1. The X Additional City Civil Court, Chennai
2. The X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai CRP Nos. 6158 and 6159 of 2026 24.09.2026