Madras High Court
CRP/3125/2026 of N.Anusuya Vs M.Subramaniya Reddy on 14 October 2026
CRP No.3125 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 3125 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010928642026}
1. N.Anusuya
W/o K.P.Narayanasamy Reddy,
No.68, Othavadai Street,
Kainoor Village,
Arakkonam Taluk,
Ranipet District
2. N.Baskaran
S/o K.P.Narayanasamy Reddy,
No.68, Othavadai Street,
Kainoor Village,
Arakkonam Taluk,
Ranipet District
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. M.Subramaniya Reddy
S/o Munusamy,
Kainoor Village,
Arakkonam Taluk,
Ranipet District 631 003
2. The District Collector
Collectorate, M.B.T.Road,
Bharathi Nagar,
Ranipet 632 403
3. The Tahsildar
Arakkonam
Ranipet District 631 003
4. B.Rekha
W/o Jayaprakash,
No.145, Bazaar Street,
Latchivakkam Village,
Palavakkam Post,
Tiruvellore District
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 06:22:44 pm )
CRP No.3125 of 2026
5. B.Divya
W/o Devadas
No.18 Nethaji Nagar,
Kainoor Village,
Arakkonam Taluk,
Ranipet District
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside fair and the decretal order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the District Munsif, Sholinghur, Ranipet District in EA.No.17 of 2026 in EA.No.1
of 2023 in EP.No.113 of 2008 in OS.No.93 of 2007 and consequently allow the said EA.No.17/2026.
For Petitioner(s):
M/S. S.Shree Narasimhachaary
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Rajarajan for R1
Mr. P.Sunil
Government Advocate for R2 and R3
Mr.Masood Ahamed for R4 and R5
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 challenging the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to defer the evidence of petitioners/respondents 4 and 5 and to direct the 1st respondent to be examined first followed by respondents 2 and 3.
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 06:22:44 pm )
CRP No.3125 of 2026
2. It is seen from the typed set of papers, the 1st respondent herein filed a suit seeking direction to the 3rd respondent to issue patta in his name in respect of the property. The 1st respondent claims right over the subject property under registered settlement deed executed by A.P.Narayanasamy. The said suit was decreed by granting mandatory injunction directing the 3rd respondent to issue patta in the name of 1st respondent. Since the 3rd respondent has not issued patta, the 1st respondent filed an execution petition in E.P.No.113 of 2008, on the file of District Munsif, Sholinghur, Ranipet District. In the said execution petition, the respondents 4 and 5 filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC to stop the delivery order in respect of the schedule mentioned property. In the said application, the petitioners herein have been arrayed as respondents 4 and 5. The petitioners herein filed instant application in E.A.No.17 of 2026 with the prayer that the 1st respondent/plaintiff to be examined first followed by the respondents 2 and 3 and thereafter permit the petitioners to adduce the evidence. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.
3. The respondents 4 and 5 are petitioners in the claim petition and it is stated that the sale deed executed by Narayanasamy was invalid document and therefore, the decree holders are not entitled to execute the decree. Till date, the registered documents executed in favour of the 1st respondent/decree holder have not been challenged in the manner known to law. Therefore, the
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 06:22:44 pm )
CRP No.3125 of 2026
maintainability of the very petition filed by the respondents 4 and 5 under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC is very much doubtful. The 1st respondent has not obtained any decree for recovery of possession. The decree is only for mandatory injunction directing the 3rd respondent to issue patta in the name of the 1st respondent. In the absence of decree for recovery of possession, the obstruction petition filed by the respondents 4 and 5 cannot be maintained under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. In any event, the respondents 4 and 5 and the petitioner herein are sailing in the same boat. Both of them made claim for the subject property. Therefore, the trial Court has taken a view that the petitioners in E.A.No.17 of 2026 shall lead evidence prior to the 1st respondent/ decree holder.
4. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ub
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 06:22:44 pm )
CRP No.3125 of 2026
To The District Munsif, Sholinghur, Ranipet District.
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 06:22:44 pm )
CRP No.3125 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J. ub CRP No.3125 of 2026 14.10.2026
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 06:22:44 pm )