CRP/1261/2025 of V.M.KOTHANDARAMAN Vs S.DEIVANAI on 18 August 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.K.Sukumaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4.

2. The present revision petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike of an application filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code that has been filed by the respondents in E.A.No.2

of 2024 in EP No.73 of 2015 on the file of III Additional District Court, Puducherry.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.K.Sukumaran would state that the application filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code is a clear abuse of process and the matter has already attained finality upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the respondents are trying to re-agitate the concluded issues against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the order passed by this Court in revision, which was filed by the plaintiff as petitioner viz., the revision petitioner herein seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration, invoking Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. The said Revision Petitions in CRP Nos.2177 and 2179 of 2019 came to be allowed. Two applications were filed – one by the petitioner and another by the respondents for rescission of the contract. In the interregnum period, the Division bench of this Court in CMP Nos.10328 of 2017 permitted the petitioner to deposit the balance sale consideration amount within a particular period of time. The said order of the Division Bench has been complied with and the money has been deposited. Subsequently, the said orders, rejecting the application for recession filed by the respondents and allowing the application for extension of time by the revision petitioner, came to be allowed by the Executing Court. Challenging the same, two revisions were filed by the respondents herein in CRP NPD Nos.2177 and 2179 of 2019. this Court disposed of the revisions petitions with the following directions:-

(1) the plaintiff shall pay an interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of Rs.38,27,837/- frim 07.02.2022 till the date of deposit i.e., 21.04.2023;

(2) In addition, he shall pay a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioners within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

(3) The payment of interest on the aforesaid amount and the payment of compensation, if not paid, the decree shall stand rescinded without further reference to this Court.”

4. Admittedly, the said amount has been deposited and is lying to the credit of the Original Suit. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed, which factual position is admitted by Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. It is also brought to my notice that the first respondent has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.256 of 2017 claiming to be Class-I legal heirs of the son Dhandapani and the same is pending before the Additional Sub Court, Puducherry. In the said suit, the petitioner attempted to seek rejection of the plaint. However, the petitioner was unsuccessful and it is as against the said dismissal of the reject plaint application, CRP PD No.4230 of 2026 has been filed and it is pending before this Court.

5. On one hand, the petitioner is now seeking to strike of the remedy available under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the execution proceedings and on the other hand, seeking to reject the plaint that has been filed for partition. Admittedly, the petitioner is a party defendant in the other suit. In view of the subsequent developments viz., the directions issued by this Court in CRP Nos.2117 and 2119 of 2019 and the same having been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the fact that the conditional order passed by this Court has also been complied with, I am unable to appreciate the stand of the respondents in questioning the executability of the decree especially when their claims and contentions were rejected by this Court in the said two revision petitions and the said order was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the same time, as rightly contended by Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja, learned counsel for the respondents the respondents cannot be left high and dry, without any remedy and they should be atleast allowed to pursue their suit for partition in which admittedly, the revision petitioner is a party and there, all the contentions and objections of the respective parties can be agitated and given a quietus, after elaborate trial.

6. At this juncture, I queried Mr.K.Sukumaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner as to whether the petitioner is willing to withdraw the challenge to the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code in CRP No.4230 of 2026. On instructions, Mr.K.Sukumaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to withdraw CRP No.4230 of 2026 to enable trial in O.S.No.256 of 2017 which is pending before the Additional Sub Court, Puducherry.

7. In the light of the above and considering the factual and legal position the respondents having lost upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the further amounts have also been parted with by the revision petitioner, the decree for specific performance cannot be challenged and its executability also cannot be questioned at this juncture, subject to the first respondent being successful in her suit for partition.

8. In the light of the above, the civil revision petition is allowed and E.A.No.2 of 2024 in EP No.73 of 2015 is struck off, giving liberty to the first respondent S.Deivanai to work out her remedies and redress her grievances in the pending suit in

O.S.No.256 of 2017, pending before Additional Sub Court, Puducherry, in a manner known to law.

9. As already observed, the petitioner shall withdraw CRP No.4230 of 2026 which is filed challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking rejection of the plaint, by circulating a suitable letter to the Registry and have the matter listed at the earliest.

10. I am also informed that the partition suit in O.S.No.256 of 2017 is at the stage of trial and therefore, the Additional Subordinate Judge, Puducherry shall endeavor to expedite the trial in the suit and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. At the same time, the execution proceedings cannot be kept pending endlessly. Having succeeded upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and diligently complied with all the directions of this Court, the petitioner is certainly entitled to execution of sale deed.

11. The execution of the sale deed shall not be withheld citing pendency of the partitioin suit and the executing court shall proceed to execute the sale deed, after following the procedure under Order XXI Rule 34 of Civil Procedure Code.

12. The petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh Execution Petition for possession and the Executing Court shall decide the same after hearing the objections of the respondents.

13. The Executing Court shall dispose of the Execution Petition E.P.No.73 of 2025 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

14. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18.08.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To

1. The III Additional District Court, Puducherry.

2. The Additional Subordinate Court, Puducherry

P.B.BALAJI.,J sr CRP No. 1261 of 2025 18.08.2026