Madras High Court

CRP/6237/2026 of Shenbaga Residency and Convention Centre Vs Muniammal Alias Santha on 27 October 2026

CRP No. 6237 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-10-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

CRP No. 6237 of 2026

C.M.P.No.26935 of 2026

CNR: {HCMA012304682026}

Shenbaga Residency and Convention Centre No.432, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Puducherry 605003.

Rep. by its Partner,

V.Suresh,

No.22, Sathiya Nagar,

4th Cross Street, Saram,

Puducherry-13

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Muniammal Alias Santha

2. Kuppammal Alias Vasantha

Patchiappan Alias Shanmugam (Died)

3. Saraswathy

4. Madhavan

..Respondent(s)

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the order directing delivery dated 02.09.2026 in E.P.No.407 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Puducherry.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Sharath Chandran

For Respondent(s):

M/s.R.Nandhini

for M/s.S.S.Rajesh for R1 and R2

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of delivery passed by the Executing Court .

CRP No. 6237 of 2026

Page 1 of 3

2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for partition against the predecessor in interest of other respondent namely Patchaippan @ Shanmugam in O.S.No.238 of 1991 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Puducherry. In the said suit preliminary decree allotting 2/3rd share was passed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2. Thereafter, the respondents 1 and 2 filed final decree application in I.A.No.3 of 1994. The final decree was passed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 allotting 2/3rd share. Based on the final decree, the respondents 1 and 2 filed petition seeking execution of the decree in E.P.No.407 of 2023. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking declaration the decree was inexecutable one. The said application was dismissed by the Executing Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in ATN20230003582C202600007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry on 04.10.2026. In the meantime, the Executing Court by impugned order passed delivery order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of the obstruction petition already filed appeal before the First Appellate Court. It is for the petitioner to file appropriate stay petition before the trial Court and work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Since, the obstruction petition filed by the petitioner is already dismissed by the Executing Court as a necessary consequence, the Executing Court passed order for delivery. The same cannot be a subject matter

CRP No. 6237 of 2026

Page 2 of 3

of challenge in a Revision. When the petitioner has got appeal remedy against the dismissal of the obstruction petition, the petitioner is granted three weeks time to file appropriate application before the First Appellate Court and workout his remedy. In the meantime, the order of delivery passed by the Executing Court is kept in abeyance. With this clarification, the Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No EP To:- The Principal Sub Court, Puducherry.

CRP No. 6237 of 2026

S.SOUNTHAR, J. EP CRP No. 6237 of 2026 C.M.P.No.26935 of 2026 27-10-2026

Page 3 of 3

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead