E.Kondala Rao v. T.D.Padmavathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-12-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI AND CMP NO. 26413 of 2025 and CMP NO. 26425 OF 2025 E.Kondala Rao Petitioner in CRP.No.5239 of 2025 Dr.Sasikala Ramakrishnan Petitioner in CRP.No.5244 of 2025 Vs
1. T.D.Padmavathy 2.Mohideen Meera A.Mohammed Abdul Khader (Deceased) 3.A. Mohammed Rasool 4.A.M.Noorddin 5.A.M.Nazina Bivi 6.A.M.Siddiq 7.A.M.Sheik Mansoor 8.A.M.Abdul Rahaman 9.A.M.Shahul Hameed 10.Selvi. Aysha Banu 11.K.R.Kamalakar 12.Ayyub Nisha 1/7
13.A.Aseena Malik 14.A.A.Ameen Malik 15.G.Kannan 16.J. Murali 17.Dr.Sasikala Ramkrishnan 18.M.Aarthi 19.P.Parthipan 20.Lakshmi 21.Anjali Devi 22.A.Mustaq 23.Arunathi 24.K.Babee 25.Devika Manikkam Respondents in CRP.No.5239 of 2025
1. T.D.Padmavathy 2.Mohideen Meera A.Mohammed Abdul Khader (Deceased) 3.A. Mohammed Rasool 4.A.M.Noorddin 5.A.M.Nazina Bivi 6.A.M.Siddiq 2/7
7.A.M.Sheik Mansoor 8.A.M.Abdul Rahaman 9.A.M.Shahul Hameed 10.Selvi. Aysha Banu 11.K.R.Kamalakar 12.Ayyub Nisha 13.A.Aseena Malik 14.A.A.Ameen Malik 15.E.Kondala Rao 16.G.Kannan 17.J.Murali 18.M.Aarthi 19.P.Parthipan 20.Lakshmi 21.Anjali Devi 22.A.Mustaq 23.Arunathi 24.K.Babee 25.Devika Manikkam Respondents in CRP.No.5244 of 2025 PRAYER in CRP.No.5239 of 2025:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 3/7
before this Court against the fair and Decretal order dated 13.8.2025 passed in EA.No.4/2025 in EP.No. 4727/2012 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai.
PRAYER in CRP.No.5244 of 2025:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, before this Court against the fair and Decreetal order dated 13.08.2025 passed in EA.NO.4/2025 in EP.No. 4727/2012 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai.
For Petitioner:
Mr.Vijayamehanath (in both CRP'S) For Respondents:
(in both CRP's) Mrs.R.Angalaparameswari (R1) C O M M O N O R D E R The revision petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.08.2025 passed under Order XXI Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. I do not find infirmity in the order passed by the Executing Court in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners finding that they have no independent right over the schedule property. However, I am not able to justify 4/7
the imposition of costs by the Executing Court and no reasons have been assigned for awarding such huge costs in favour of the decree holder. 4.In the light of the above, while confirming the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Executing Court, imposition of costs alone is set aside. Though the petitioners made a request for time to vacate the premises by six months and three months respectively, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the said request for grant of time as according to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/decree holder purchased the property in the year 1998 and apart from petitioners, there are 10 obstructors, against whom Execution Petition is pending.
Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 04-12-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes arr 5/7
To The IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
6/7
P.B.BALAJI, J.
arr CRP Nos. 5239 of 2025 and 5244 OF 2025 04-12-2025 7/7