CRP/5414/2026 of Alleliappa (Died) Narayanappa Vs Kullamma alias Muniyamma (died), 1.Srinivasa Reddy on 2 September 2026

ORDER

The matter is listed today under the caption ‘for being mentioned’ at the instance of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners brings to my notice that there are typographical errors in the order dated 27.08.2026 in CRP.No.5414 of 2026, at paragraph No.4 in the second line, the date 01.08.2026 has been inadvertently typed as 01.08.2025 and in paragraph No.7(v), the date 01.08.2026 has been inadvertently typed as 01.09.2026. Hence, he prays for necessary corrections to be carry out in the said order.

3. Considering the above, Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the order dated 27.08.2026 in CRP.No.5414 of 2026 and issue a fresh order copy to the parties. 02.09.2026 ata

CRP No. 5414 of 2026 P.B.BALAJI.,J ata CRP No. 5414 of 2026 02.09.2026

CRP No. 5414 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-08-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No. 5414 of 2026 and CMP No.23448 of 2026

1. Alleliappa (Died) Narayanappa S/o.Late Alleliyappa, Rest.at. Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai tk., Krishnagiri Dist. Ramachandrappa (died). and 8 Others

2. Aswathnarayanappa S/o.Late Alleliyappa, Rest.at. Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

3. Venkataresappa S/o.Late Alleliyappa, Rest.at. Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

4. Rajappa S/o.Late Alleliyappa, Rest.at. Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

5. Susilamma W/o.Late Ramachandrappa, Rest.at. Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

CRP No. 5414 of 2026

6. Adharsha D/o.Late Ramachandrappa, Rest.at. Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

7. Lavanya D/o.Late Ramachandrappa, Rest.at. Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

8. Sukesh S/o.Late Ramachandrappa, Rest.at. Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

9. Akshay S/o.Late Ramachandrappa, Rest.at. Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai tk., Krishnagiri Dist. (above 5 to 9 are the legal heirs of Ramachandrappa (the original 2nd respondent in EP) vide order dated 10.02.2023 in CMP.No.1572, 1579 amd 1581 of 2023 in CRP.No.1936 of 2021 passed by the Honble High Court) Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Kullamma alias Muniyamma (died),

1. Srinivasa Reddy S/o.Late Hanumanth Reddy, Rest.at Gopasantthiram Villge, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai Tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

2. Venkata Reddy S/o.Late Rama Reddy, Rest.at Gopasantthiram Villge, Thalli Post,

CRP No. 5414 of 2026 Denkanikottai Tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

3. Suganamma D/o.Late Sampangi Reddy, Kurubar Palli Village, Thali Post, Denkanikottai Tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

4. Kamatchiamma W/o.Late Krishna Reddy, Rest.at Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai Tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

5. Chandrakala D/o.Late Krishna Reddy, Rest.at Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai Tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

6. Padma D/o.Late Krishna Reddy, Rest.at Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai Tk., Krishnagiri Dist.

7. Narayana Reddy S/o.Late Krishna Reddy, Rest.at Gopasantthiram Village, Thalli Post, Denkanikottai Tk., Krishnagiri Dist. Respondent(s)

Revision filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 01.08.2026 in E.A.No.Nil of 2026 in EP No.26 of 2014 in O.S.No.804 of 1993 passed by the District Munsif, Denkanikottai. For Petitioner(s): R.Gopinath

ORDER

CRP No. 5414 of 2026 Heard Mr.R.Gopinath, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The present revision petition challenges the order of return dated 01.08.2026 by the District Munsif, Denkanikottai.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that despite the application having been filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors and without even numbering the same, the executing Court has now terminated the execution petition. He would further state that now the termination of execution petition would be put against the revision petitioners.

4. Admittedly, the application in REA SR No.12 of 2026 has been filed prior to the execution petition being terminated on 01.08.2025. On the said date, the execution application that has been filed on 25.04.2025 has been returned by the same Court. However, I find that the return is not on the ground that the execution petition has been terminated, but only calls upon the petitioners to state as to how the petition is maintainable when delivery warrant has been executed and also in view of the contentions raised in the petition being conclusively decided by this Court in CRP No.1936 of 2021 as early as on 21.01.2025. Admittedly, the said returns have not been represented and instead, the revision petition has been filed straight away invoking Article 227 of Constitution of India.

CRP No. 5414 of 2026

5. This Court in K. Selvaraj and others vs Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant Indian Ltd reported in 2021 4 CTC 539 has held that the Trial Court, in the event of repeated returns and the same being represented, ought to have called the matter in open Court and thereafter hear the counsel for the petitioner on the maintainability and pass orders.

6. Admittedly, the said procedure has not been complied with in the instant case. Further, the application has not been rejected, but only, returned, which admittedly has not been represented thereafter i.e., after 01.08.2026.

7. In the light of the above, the civil revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The Registry shall return the original REA SR No.12 of 2026 to the counsel for the petitioner within a period of one week from the order being uploaded in the website.

(ii) The executing Court shall hear the counsel for the petitioner on maintainability, after the return dated 01.08.2026 is represented with necessary compliances.

CRP No. 5414 of 2026 P.B.BALAJI.,J sr

(iv) The counsel for the petitioners shall be heard in open Court and thereafter, the executing Court shall pass orders with regard to the maintainability of the application.

(v) The Court should not put the reason of the execution petition being terminated as a ground holding that the petition is not maintainable since admittedly, it is only after the petition was filed in April that the execution proceedings were terminated on 01.09.2026.

(vi) The maintainability shall be argued and orders shall be passed with within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 27.08.2026 sr Index:yes.no Webite:yes/.bo Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To The District Munsif, Denkaanikttai CRP No. 5414 of 2026