CRP/4854/2026 of Yesodhammal (Deceased) Vs M.Sasikala on 10 August 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.N.Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Sundar, learned counsel for the respondent / caveator.

2. The revision petitioners are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.168 of 2025. An application in E.A.No.3 of 2026 was filed by the revision petitions for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to identify the decretal property and

( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:45 pm )

CRP No. 4854 of 2026

file a report. The said application was dismissed by Executing Court, against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending suit, the revision petitioners also filed a counter claim and it has been the consistent case all along that the said decretal property which is about 341.25 sq.ft forms part of a larger of 800 sq.ft. The parties went to trial and after elaborate trial, the trial Court decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim. The said decree has become final with the dismissal of the second appeal before this Court. When the decree was put to execution, the application in E.A.No.3 of 2026 has been taken out to identify the suit property.

4. According to Mr.N.Manoharan, who also relies on the photographs showing the current status of the property, the decretal property as set out in the decree cannot be identified by the bailiff. He would also rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and ors. Vs. Salig Ram and Ors. reported in (2020) 11 SCC 590 as well as Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 where guidelines have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the expeditious adjudication of the Execution Petition. He would therefore state that no prejudice would be caused to the decree holder if an Advocate Commissioner appointed to demarcate the decreetal property.

( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:45 pm )

CRP No. 4854 of 2026

5. Per contra, Mr.K.S.Sundar, learned counsel for the caveator / decree holder would state that the plaint originally consists of a plan which forms part of the decree passed by the trial Court. According to Mr.K.S.Sundar, the suit property which is also set out in the decree is clearly demarcated by four boundaries.

6. Though it is the contention of Mr.N.Manoharan, that the four boundaries refer to the larger extent of property measuring 800 sq.ft., the said contention is refuted by Mr.K.S.Sundar, learned counsel for the respondent / decree holder.

7. In any event, in my considered opinion, the application itself was premature. The bailiff can always visit the property and if he is not able to identify the decreetal property, viz., 341.25 sq.ft., with the available particulars in E.P, including the plan, if any annexed to the decree, then the bailiff shall report the same to the Executing Court, thereupon which, the Executing Court at his discretion may either appoint an Advocate Commissioner or surveyor. However, if the bailiff is able to identify the decreetal property, in the light of the description of the property, read along with the plan, if any annexed to the decree, then it shall be open to the bailiff to execute the decree and put the respondent/ in possession of the decreetal property alone.

( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:45 pm )

CRP No. 4854 of 2026

6. The Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of with the above terms. No costs. 10-08-2026

vum Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non speaking order To The XXVIII City Civil Court, Chennai.

( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:45 pm )

CRP No. 4854 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI J. vum CRP No. 4854 of 2026 10-08-2026

( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:45 pm )