Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2535/2026 of P. CHINNA ALWAR Vs S.Viji on 16 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2026
and
C.M.P(MD)No.12656 of
{CNR: HCMD011170682026}
Case QR
P.Chinna Alwar
... Petitioner/Respondent/
Defendant
–
Vs. -
Tmt.S.Viji
... Respondent/Petitioner/
Plaintiff
Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records of the lower court and set aside the order and lower court order dated 11.08.2026 passed and also the E.P.No.58 of 2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2018 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam.
For Petitioners
: Mr.M.Baskaran
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
The civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 11.08.2026 passed in E.P.No.58 of 2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2018 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam.
2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking partition, separate possession and an injunction against the petitioner. However, the respondent/plaintiff has not produced the fair and final order in the said suit and has produced only the daily status of the case.
3. In the said suit, a preliminary decree as well as a final decree was passed. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.58 of 2024 seeking delivery of the property. Since the petitioner/defendant did not cooperate with the delivery proceedings, the trial court directed that police assistance be provided and ordered the Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) to assist in taking delivery of the property, and posted the matter to 18.08.2026. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed contending that the respondent/plaintiff had created a forged sale deed. It is further contended that the suit property originally belonged to the grandfather and that there is no merit in the order passed by the trial court. According to the petitioner, the order directing delivery of the property suffers from serious infirmities and is therefore liable to be set aside.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
5. First of all, the petitioner has not produced the fair and final order passed by the Sub Court, Periyakulam, and has produced only the daily status of the case. From the said daily status, it is seen that, since the petitioner/respondent did not cooperate with the execution of the delivery warrant, the respondent/plaintiff sought police assistance, as well as the assistance of the Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), and the Execution Court directed that necessary steps be taken on or before 18.08.2026. The petitioner has now sought to challenge the original decree. However, she has not preferred any appeal challenging the said decree and, at this stage, cannot canvass the merits of the decree in the execution proceedings. It is a settled principle that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The delivery of the property had already been ordered pursuant to the decree, and since the petitioner had not cooperated with the delivery proceedings, the Execution Court has directed that possession be delivered with the assistance of the police, along with the assistance of the Surveyor and the VAO. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the order passed by the Execution Court.
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Execution Court warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. 16.09.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam.
2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
R.POORNIMA
, J. Ns CRP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.12656 of 2026 16.09.2026