Madras High Court
CRP/5690/2026 of S.Brindadevi Vs K.M.Abaramoorthi on 8 September 2026
CRP No. 5690 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 5690 of 2026
and
CMP No.24565 of 2026
S.Brindadevi
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. K.M.Abaramoorthi
S.Selvi(Died)
2. Uma Shankar
3. Gousigan
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the registry to number the execution application which was return by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruppur in E.A.SR.No.8135 of 2026
against E.P.No.160 of 2017 in O.S.No.472 of 2003 dated 27.08.2026 and decide on merits accords with the law.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.N.Saravanan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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 petitioner challenges the docket order returning the application filed under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC.
CRP No. 5690 of 2026
2. According to the petitioner, she is a third party to the suit for specific performance decree, which is put to execution at the instance of the respondent/ decree holder. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the second wife of Late Shanmugasundaram. The respondents 2 to 4 are the first wife and children born through the first wife respectively. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner has been in possession of the suit property for several decades together and the respondents had no right to execute the agreement of sale in favour of the respondent/decree holder. The application was however filed invoking Order 21 Rule 58 r/w Rule 101 CPC. The Court below has returned the application as not maintainable since there is no order of attachment in the Execution Petition.
3. If at all the petitioner intends to validate her independent right, title and interest in the suit property, it can be by way of an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC and not otherwise. In fact the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brahmdeo Choudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & another reported in (1997) 3 SCC 694 has already held that it is not necessary for a third party to wait until he is dispossessed, before claiming any right in the subject property and it shall be open to such third party to invoke the provisions under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC and assert right, title and interest over the suit property, which is the subject matter of the Execution Proceedings.
CRP No. 5690 of 2026
4. In the light of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the return of application under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC. However, the petitioner is given liberty to move an appropriate application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. If any such application is filed, it shall be decided strictly in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 of CPC, within a period four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruppur.
CRP No. 5690 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI, J. SLI CRP No. 5690 of 2026 and CMP No.24565 of 2026 08-09-2026