Muniammal (Deceased) 1. Renukadevi v. C.Ponnusamy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.03.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA C.R.P.No.786 of 2025 Muniammal (Deceased)

1. Renukadevi 2.K.Govindhasamy 3.Ramani 4.Minor Yokesh 5.Minor Yuva ... Petitioners Vs.

C.Ponnusamy ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, directing XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai to dispose of the Execution petition in EP.No.451/2018 in RCOP No.215/2001 within the stipulated period that may be fixed by this Honble Court For Petitioners : M/s.S.Arivazhagan

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to direct XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai to dispose of the Execution petition in E.P.No.451 of 2018 in RCOP No.215 of 2001 within the stipulated period. 1/4

2.

When the matter was listed on the earlier hearing date, the learned counsel for the petitioners expressed a grievance that the warrant of the Court could not be executed due to the non cooperation of the local police, namely Nungambakkam police. Consequently, this Court had directed the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Nungambakkam Police Station, to be present before this Court on 03.03.2025. On that day, he had undertaken that due cooperation for the execution of the warrant in E.P.No.451 of 2018 would be rendered without further delay and it would be reported to this Court today. 3.

Today, the Inspector of Police is present before this Court and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the senior bailiff of the Small Causes Court had appeared before the Inspector of Police on 05.03.2025 along with the warrant. Due cooperation was rendered by the local police, pursuant to which the warrant was executed by the senior bailiff. He has also given a report to the respondent police regarding the cooperation rendered. Additionally, the 2nd petitioner, K.Govindhasamy has also given a letter confiriming that the warrant had been executed. He would hereby request that the presence of the Inspector of Police may be dispensed with. 4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further submitted that while the senior bailiff has executed the warrant, however on the understanding 2/4

between the existing tenant and the petitioners, the tenant has been temporarily allowed to remain on the premises.

4.

Now that the warrant has been executed in E.P.No.451 of 2018 and nothing survives for further adjudication.

5.

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. 12.03.2025 rpl To The XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai 3/4

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

rpl C.R.P.No.786 of 2025 12.03.2025 4/4