Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2641/2026 of R. Stalin Vs D. Jeyapal on 24 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2641 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD011085782026}
Case QR
1.R. Stalin
2. R. Jeya
3. R. Lenin
4. R. Selvi
... Petitioner(s)
–
Vs. -
1. D. Jeyapal
Ms.Rajapandian (Died)
2. R. Poomaniammal
... Respondent(s)
Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the docket order 31.07.2026 made EP. No. 53 of 2020 in O.S. No. 99 of 2010 on the Learned Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi and allow the above Civil Revision Petition and pass such other and further orders as this Honourable Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioners
: Mr.M.Vijayarathinam
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 is filed against the impugned order dated 31.07.2026 in E.P.No.53 of 2020 in O.S.No.99 of 2010 passed by the Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi.
2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The first respondent instituted the suit against his father seeking specific performance. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 14.03.2011. Pursuant to the decree, a sale deed was also executed in favour of the first respondent. Subsequently, the father of the first respondent died, and the petitioners herein were brought on record as his legal heirs in the execution proceedings. The first respondent thereafter proceeded with the execution of the decree. The petitioners state that they filed the requisite batta in the Execution Petition on 02.07.2025. When the Amin went to the property to effect delivery of possession pursuant to the delivery warrant, certain persons who had no connection whatsoever with the suit or the execution proceedings allegedly obstructed the Amin from executing the warrant. Consequently, the Amin returned the warrant unexecuted, stating that certain third parties had attempted to prevent him from taking delivery. The petitioners further state that, thereafter, the first respondent again filed a petition seeking delivery of possession in respect of the very same property and with the same description. In the very same Execution Petition, an order for delivery was once again passed. Aggrieved by the said subsequent order directing delivery, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
4. On perusal of the decree at Page No.28, it is seen that the property described in the schedule to the decree bears Door No.3/110, presently bearing Door No.3/106-1, together with the building therein. The Execution Petition was also filed by the decree holder with the very same description. The Amin returned the warrant stating that certain persons residing in another survey number had obstructed the delivery of the building. Therefore, the Executing Court once again ordered delivery of the property. The present petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased judgment debtor, who had suffered the decree. The decree has not been challenged by way of any appeal and has, therefore, attained finality. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot now raise an objection contending that it was the duty of the decree holder to amend the description in the Execution Petition. The issue regarding the description of the property is essentially a matter between the decree holder and the Executing Court, particularly when the decree itself has attained finality. In view of the above circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present Revision Petition.
5. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.09.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi
2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. R.POORNIMA
, J. Ns
CRP(MD) NO. 2641 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.13286 of 2026 24.09.2026