Madras High Court
CRP/6051/2026 of A.H.Shabudeen Vs M.Mohammed Haneef on 23 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 6051 of 2026 and CMP No.26217 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012247182026}
1. A.H.Shabudeen
s/o Abdul Hanif, No.48, Ayyar Street,
Koonimedu Village, Marakkanam Taluk,
Villupuram District.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. M.Mohammed Haneef
S/o Mohammed Kouss Rasiya Sultan street, Koonimedu Village, Tindivaram Taluk, Villupuram District.
Respondent(s)
Revision filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code challenging the order dated 25.08.2026 made in EP No.1 of 2026 in OS No.333 of 2023 on the file of I Additional District Court, Tindivanam.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.K.Indupriya
For Respondent(s):
Ms.R.Poornima
M.Miruthula
Counsel For Caveator For Sole
Respondent
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
Heard Ms.K.Indupriya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.R.Poornima, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the delivery order in EP No.1 of 2026 in execution of decree in O.S.No.333 of 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the appeal is listed before the Hon’ble Division Bench on 25.09.2026 and since there is no interim stay granted in favour of the revision petitioner, the Executing Court has now ordered delivery along with police aid and also break open of locks. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prays for breathing time to enable the petitioner to obtain an interim protection before the Hon’ble Division Bench.
4. Per contra, Ms.R.Poornima, learned counsel for the respondent states that the appeal was listed even last week and the petitioner was not ready and took an adjournment and the suit was decreed in July 2025 and the entire sale consideration has been paid to the revision petitioner even twelve years back and despite sale deed being executed in favour of the respondent and entire sale consideration being paid to the petitioner, the petitioner is protracting the proceedings.
5. Considering the fact that admittedly, the appeal is listed before the Hon’ble Division Bench on 25.09.2026, till then, the learned counsel for the respondent is directed not to precipitate the execution proceedings to enable the petitioner to advance arguments on 25.9.2026 before the Hon’ble Division Bench and seek for suitable interim protection, failing which, it shall be open to the respondent to proceed with the execution petition.
6. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 23.09.2026 Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order sr To The I Additional District Court, Tindivanam
P.B.BALAJI.,J sr CRP No. 6051 of 2026 23.09.2026