CRP/5152/2026 of M.Anita Vs S.Murugan on 18 August 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair order dated 23.02.2026 passed by Subordinate Court, Palacode in REA No.26/2021 in REP No.54/2019 in OS No.16/2019.

2. The petitioners are third parties, who have filed an independent suit in O.S.No.175 of 2015, challenging the agreement of sale dated 16.04.2015 between the 1st respondent, namely plaintiff/ decree holder and the 2nd respondent, namely, defendant/judgment debtor.

3. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd respondent/defendant did not have any right to deal with the suit property, which is subject matter of the sale agreement dated 16.04.2015. Unfortunately, despite being a party to O.S.No175 of 2015, suppressing the said suit, the 1st respondent has filed O.S.No.12 of 2016, which later got re-numbered as O.S.No.16 of 2019 before the Sub Court, Dharmapuri.. The said suit has been decreed exparte on 10.04.2019. Pursuant to the decree, the 1st respondent/ plaintiff has also obtained a sale deed in his favour, and possession was also handed over to him, in furtherance of the decree dated 10.04.2019.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further states that a Section 47 application has been filed by the petitioners, attacking the validity of the agreement of sale, especially, in the light of pendency of O.S.No.175 of 2015 before the District Munsif, Palacode. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that if the petitioners succeed in O.S.No.175 of 2015, they would become entitled to co-ownership rights in the suit property which the 2nd respondent had agreed to convey the same by way of sale agreement, which subsequently, culminated in a decree for specific performance.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the Section 47 application was rightly dismissed by the executing court, finding that O.S.No.175 of 2015 had already been dismissed for default, and even assuming that the suit is pending, mere pendency of O.S.No.175 of 2015, in the absence of any interim orders in favour of the revision petitioners, will not impede the respondent to proceed with the suit for specific performance or subsequent to the decree, with the execution proceedings as well. He would therefore state that the application has been rightly dismissed by the executing court and the same does not warrant interference.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.

7. Admittedly, pursuant to the agreement of sale between the respondents 1 and 2, a suit for specific performance has been filed in O.S.No.16 of 2019. The said suit was decreed exparte and pursuant to which, the 1st respondent/ plaintiff has got a sale deed in his favour. It is claimed by the 1st respondent that he has been in possession of the property. However, the said contention is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that possession is not yet handed over to the decree holder in O.S.No.16 of 2019.

8. Be that as it may, today, there is also dispute with regard to the factum of O.S.No.175 of 2015 being pending or not. In the said suit, admittedly, the petitioners have sought for relief, challenging the validity of the agreement of sale, which has been enforced by way of decree in O.S.No.16 of 2019 before the Sub Court, Dharmapuri and the executing court has also executed a sale deed in favour of the successful plaintiff/ decree holder. In such circumstances, the executing court, on the given facts and circumstances, has rightly dismissed the Section 47 application and therefore, I do not see any grounds warranting interference in this revision.

9. However, without going into the rival contentions with regard to the factum of pendency of O.S.No.175 of 2015, it is made clear that if the said suit is pending or is in the process of being restored, it shall be open to the petitioners to seek liberty to amend the plaint suitably, to challenge the decree in O.S.No.175 of 2015 or as they may be advised and proceed with such other available remedies in the said suit.

10. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. It is needless to state that since the petitioners were not parties to the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.16 of 2019, they are at liberty to raise all their contentions and objections and the observations that have been made by the executing court should not be put against them. In the event of the Trial Court permitting amendment to the plaint in O.S.No.175 of 2015, it is needless to state that opportunities shall be offered to the contesting defendants to file an additional written statement. 18-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The Subordinate Judge, Palacode.

P.B.BALAJI, J. MST CRP No. 5152 of 2026 18-08-2026