CRP/4796/2026 of C.Nagammal Vs The Madras Cemeteries Board on 7 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

These two revision petitions have been filed, one challenging the dismissal of the stay application in A.S.No.209 of 2025 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and the other challenging the dismissal of the Section 47 application filed by the petitioner, as judgment debtor in the execution proceedings.

2. Since the issues are connected and the parties are also the same, these revision petitions have been heard together.

3. I have Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, for Mr.S.Sugumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions and the Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the respondent in both the revision petitions.

4. The primordial contention of Mrs.Narmadha Sampath is that the respondent-decree holder has no title to the suit property. The decree holder filed a counter claim, along with the written statement, after filing the first vakalat representing itself to be Madras Cemetery Board, represented by its Secretary. However, pending the suit and the counter claim, the second vakalat was introduced, reflecting the respondent-decree holder as Madras Cemetery Board. The contention of Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the said vakalat was introduced, only in order to avail concessional benefit under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, which requires only a nominal Court fee of Rs.200/- as against the court fees payable on the market value of the suit property. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would therefore state that these issues have not been properly dealt with and unfortunately, even the stay application in the first appeal has been dismissed, as against which the second revision petition has been filed, which would render the appeal itself infructuous, if the respondent proceeds to execute the decree. She would therefore state that the petitioner has substantial defense in the first appeal and she prays for some protection and assures that the petitioner would co-operate for expeditious disposal of the first appeal.

5. Per contra, Mr.T.N.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the respondent- decree holder would state that all these issues have already been considered in the suit and also in a batch of civil revision petitions before this Court, in and by order dated 12.06.2026 in CRP.Nos.2309, 2310 & 2312 of 2026. This Court disposed of the revision petitions filed by the petitioner, giving a direction to the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal within a period of four months. The contentions that were raised in the earlier revision petitions were also touching the very same issues, as to the nomenclature of the respondent and this Court held that the issue can be agitated only in the appeal and especially since the Trial Court has also dealt with the same by framing an appropriate issue in that regard and answering it in favour of the respondent. A Section 47 application also has been filed on the very same grounds. As already held by this Court, the issue of whether the respondent is a Trust and entitled to the concessional court fee payable under Section 28 of the Act, can be agitated only in the first appeal and not in the execution proceedings, that too, by way of filing a Section 47 application.

6. I have gone through the order of the Executing Court dismissing the Section 47 application. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings arrived at, warranting interference in revision. However, at the same time, considering that in the event of the execution petition being proceeded with, the petitioner would be dispossessed, even without the main appeal being disposed of, in order to balance equities, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, however, with the following directions:

(i) The First Appellate Court (V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai) shall dispose of A.S.No.209 of 2025, on or before 16.10.2026, along with all pending applications that may have been filed by the petitioner as the appellant;

(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the expeditious disposal of the appeal, in order to comply with the direction of this Court, namely disposal of the appeal by 16.10.2026. The petitioner shall not seek for any adjournments and shall not file any fresh application to prolong the disposal of the appeal since the petitioner has already exhausted all avenues open, even moving a Section 47 application as well as Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC application in the pending first appeal.

(iii) It is made clear that if the first appeal, for any reason whatsoever, is not disposed of by 16.10.2026, it shall be open to the respondent to proceed with the execution petition. Till then, the execution petition shall be deferred. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 07.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To

1. The XXVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP Nos.4796 & 4986 of 2026 & CMP.Nos.20992 & 21738 of 2026 07.09.2026