The State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Shanmugam

ORDER Heard Mr.R.Ramanlaal, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioners and Mr.T.Balaji the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶2The revision is at the instance of the Judgment Debtors in the execution petition in E.P.No.56 of 2022 in O.S.No.7 of 2011 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode.

¶3The respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.7 of 2011 seeking the relief of mandatory injunction to direct the revision petitioners to effect mutation of revenue records in the name of the plaintiff. The said suit came to be decreed on 10.10.2011.

¶4According to Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the petitioners, the execution petition was filed only on 28.07.2022 and the Limitation Act imposes a term of only three years for executing a decree for mandatory injunction and admittedly, the execution petition has not been filed within the prescribed period of Limitation. He has referred to Article 135 of Limitation Act in this regard, which is extracted here under: Limitation Act, 1963 Description of Suit Period of limitation Time for which period begins to run For the enforcement of a decree granting a mandatory injunction Three Years The date of the decree or where a date is fixed for performance, such date

¶5He would therefore state that the execution petition itself is not maintainable and therefore the order of arrest passed by the executing Court is also bad in law and liable to be set aside. It is also state that subject suit property is water body.

¶6Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that though the decree was passed on 10.10.2011 and a third party challenged the said decree by filing a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2012 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode and subsequently, the suit came to be dismissed and the petitioner had approached the Revenue Divisional Officer who had also recommended for issuance of patta to the plaintiff, in proceedings vide NA.KA.No.9824/2014/A7 dated 26.09.2014. He would therefore state that the execution petition is within time and cannot be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation.

¶7I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶8As already discussed, the decree was passed in O.S.No.7 of 2010 on 10.10.2011 and in terms of Article 135 of the Limitation Act, the decree for mandatory injunction has to be executed within a period of three years from the date of the decree, or where a date is fixed for performance, such date. Admittedly, in the present case, no date has been fixed for performance and therefore the time available for executing the decree would consequently be three years from the date of decree i.e., 10.10.2011. Admittedly, the execution petition has been filed only on 28.07.2022, beyond the period of three years prescribed under Article 135 of Limitation Act.

¶9In view of the above, there is clear a bar for the Decree Holder to execute the decree and therefore the executing Court ought not to have proceeded to hear the execution petition and pass order of arrest.

¶10In view of the above, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 14.07.2023 in EP.No.56 of 2022 and also hold that the execution petition is time barred and not maintainable in law. Hence, the execution petition stands dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff seeks for liberty to move the Writ Court in view of the recommendation of the Revenue Divisional Officer and pursue his remedy in Writ Jurisdiction. It is open to the petitioners to move the Writ Court for appropriate relief, in accordance with law.

¶11In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Vv To The Principal District Munsif Court, Erode P.B.BALAJI J. CRP No. 1310 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 7791 OF 2025

09.09.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No. 1310 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 7791 OF 2025 1. The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By The District Collector, Erode District, Erode. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Erode. 3.The Tahsildar Erode. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. K.Shanmugam S/o. Karuppana Gounder, Srinivasa Street, Kallukkadai Medu, Erode-1, Erode Dist. Respondent(s) CMP No. 7791 of 2025 1. The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By The District Collector, Erode District, Erode. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Erode. 3.The Tahsildar Erode. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. K.Shanmugam S/o. Karuppana Gounder, Srinivasa Street, Kallukkadai Medu, Erode-1, Erode Dist. Respondent(s) CRP No. 1310 of 2025 PRAYER To Set aside the Order dated 14.07.2023 EP No. 56 of 2022 in OS No. 7 of 2011 on the file of Learned Principal District Munsif Court, Erode CMP No. 7791 of 2025 PRAYER To stay all further proceedings in EP No. 56 of 2022 in OS No. 7 of 2011 dated 14.07.2023 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Erode CRP No. 1310 of 2025 and CMP.No.7791 of 2025 For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Ramanlaal Additional Advocate General, Assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader and Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent(s): Mr. T.Balaji for Mr.A.Thiyagarajan