Madras High Court
CRP/3818/2026 of C.ANNAMALAI (DIED) 1. V. Kuppusamy Vs KARUNAGARAN (DIED), 1.The Commissioner on 9 September 2026
CRP No. 3818 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 3818 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012660512025}
C.ANNAMALAI (DIED)
K.Kumar (died),
M.Rathana Sabapathy(died)
N.Rangasamy (died)
C.Shanmugan (died)
M.Subramani (died)
K.Jayabalan (died)
A.Balakrishnan (died)
K.Shankar (died).
1. V. Kuppusamy
S/O. Varadharajan,
Bharathiyar and Gandhi Nagar,
Arni Town.
2. S.Sekar
S/o.Subramaniyan,
No.2nd Street, Gandhi Nagar,
Arni Town.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
KARUNAGARAN (DIED)
Shanmugam (died)
M.Dhanapal (died)
Joseph (died)
V.Manimudaliyar (died)
1\8
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:41:15 pm )
CRP No. 3818 of 2026
Alim Sayabu (died)
M.Gandhamani (died)
Varadhan (died)
Subramani (died)
Moorthy (died).
1.The Commissioner
Arni Municipality, Arni.
2.Kowsalya
C/6 Block, T.S.No.711,
Near Arni Govt.Hospital, Arni Taluk.
3.The Tahsildar
Arni Town, Tiruvannamalai Dist.
4.The District Collector
Thiruvannamalai District.
5.Mani
S/o.Thangalar,
Arni Town, Near Govt.Hospital,
Arni.
6.K.Shanmugam
S/o.Karunakaran,
No.97/73 Periyar Nagar,
Arni Fort, Arni.
7.K.Kumar
S/o.Karunakaran,
No.21/60, Dharmaraja Koil Street,
Arnipalayam, Arni.
8.A.Thatchayini
D/o.Karunakaran,
No.97/73 Periyar Nagar,
Arni Fort, Arni.
9.Vellachi Ammal
W/o.Late Subramani,
Residing at C Block , T.S.No.7/31
Near Arni Govt.Hospital, Arni Fort,
Arni Town.
2\8
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:41:15 pm )
CRP No. 3818 of 2026
10.Durai
S/o.Late Subramani,
Residing at C Block , T.S.No.7/31
Near Arni govt.Hospital, Arni Fort,
Arni Town.
11.Settu
s/o.Late Subramani,
Residing at C Block , T.S.No.7/31
Near Arni Govt.Hospital, Arni Fort,
Arni Town.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 20.06.2025 passed in EP No.181 of 2000 in OS No.171 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arni.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P. Srinivas for R1
Mr.P. Sunil,
Govt. Advocate for R3 & R4
Mr. K.Shakespeare for R6 to R11
R2 – Not ready in notice
R5 Died
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 revision petitioners, who are the decree-holders in O.S. No. 171 of 1984 on the file of District Munsif Court, Arni, aggrieved by the dismissal of E.P. No. 181 of 2000, have filed the present civil revision petition.
2. Heard Mr.P. Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the decree- holders and Mr.K. Shakespeare,learned counsel for the judgment debtors. 3\8
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:41:15 pm )
CRP No. 3818 of 2026
3. The petitioners/decree-holders succeeded before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court when the second appeal preferred by the defendants/judgment debtors came to be dismissed for non-prosecution and applications were taken out for restoration of the second appeal with a huge delay. While considering the said applications, this Court, even though did not choose to entertain the reasons assigned by the judgment debtors and proceeded to dismiss the condone delay application and the restoration application, made certain observations that both the parties will have to approach the Revenue Authorities to establish their title.
4. Aggrieved by the said observations and findings made by this Court, the petitioners moved the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP(C)Nos. 11167 to 11169 of 2023 and the Honourable Supreme Court, by order dated 19.03.2025, disposed of the Special Leave Petitions as hereunder: “3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, once the second appeal had been dismissed and the applications for recall of the said order or for restoration of the second appeal have also been dismissed, it was not open for the High Court to have observed anything on the merits of the case.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of these Special Leave Petitions with the direction that any observations, findings or direction recorded by the High Court while rejecting the 4\8
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:41:15 pm )
CRP No. 3818 of 2026 restoration applications by the impugned order(s) dated 20.07.2022 shall not come in the way of either of the parties and would not be treated as a binding precedent.
5. However, it will be open for the Government to take appropriate steps for the eviction of the encroachers, if any.” Thus, it could be seen that the observations and findings over which the petitioners/decree-holders were aggrieved, in fact, were expunged by the Honourable Supreme Court. However, the Honourable Supreme Court, left it open to the Government to take appropriate steps for eviction of the encroachers, if any and the decree in favour of the petitioners has been clarified by the Honourable Supreme Court that it would be available to be executed excepting for a further direction issued to the Government to take steps in the event of the Government, being of the opinion that the petitioners themselves are encroachers.
5. In respect of the aforesaid observations, the petitioners themselves have attempted to take action by filing writ proceedings. As on date, admittedly, writ petitions have been filed and the same are pending. In any event, pendency of writ proceedings will not come in the way of executing the decree in favour of the petitioners/decree-holders, which has become final upto the Honourable Supreme Court. The Executing Court has erroneously dismissed the execution petition observing that since the contempt petition has 5\8
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:41:15 pm )
CRP No. 3818 of 2026 been dismissed, the petitioners have no locus standi to execute the decree and their execution petition is not maintainable. The dismissal of the contempt petition has nothing to do with the decree passed in favour of the revision petitioners which came to be confirmed by both Courts as well as in Second Appeal and also subsequently clarified by the Honourable Supreme Court by order dated 19.03.2025.
6. In the light of the above, the dismissal of the execution petition is clearly perverse and not reasoned and it is liable to be set aside. The civil revision petition stands allowed setting aside the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Executing Court in E.P. No. 181 of 2000 and the execution petition is restored to file. The execution petition shall be disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, on or before 30.01.2027. It is needless to state that the observations made in this order are purely confined to this civil revision petition since the Honourable Supreme Court has given liberty to the Government to take action, if it is found that there is any encroachment concerning the suit property. No costs. 01-10-2026 Neutral Citation:Yes/No nv 6\8
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:41:15 pm )
CRP No. 3818 of 2026 To
1. The District Munsif Court, Arni.
2. The Commissioner, Arni Municipality, Arni.
3. The Tahsildar Arni Town, Tiruvannamalai Dist.
4. The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District. 7\8
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:41:15 pm )
CRP No. 3818 of 2026 P.B.BALAJI J. nv CRP No. 3818 of 2026
01-10-2026 8\8
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:41:15 pm )