Selvaradjou vs Chamber De Commerce

2026:MHC:4390
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 28.09.2026 Order pronounced on : 30.10.2026
CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.No.3107 of 2026
& CMP.No.13470 of 2026
1.Selvaradjou
2.Selvam
3.Latha
4.Marimuthu
5.Radha @ Lakshmi
6.Anjali .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.Chamber De Commerce,
A registered Society,
Represented by its President,
Having its office at
No.1, Rue Suffren,
Puducherry – 504 001.
2.Honesty Engineers & Contractors Trust,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
Having office at
No.509, M.G.Road, Muthialpet,
Puducherry – 605 003. .. Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to
set aside the order dated 28.04.2026 in E.A.SR.No.10398 of 2025 in H.R.C.E.P.No.14 of
2017 in H.R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Puducherry.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:35 pm )

2026:MHC:4390
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for Mrs.V.Srimathi
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Sriram
Senior Counsel
Mr.D.Ravichander for R1
ORDER
The present revision petition is at the instance of third parties, who have attempted
to raise their objections by filing an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. The
said application in unnumbered EA.SR.No.10398 of 2025 came to be dismissed even at
the stage of numbering, after hearing the arguments on the maintainability of the
application.
2.I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.V.Srimathi,
learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel
st
for Mr.D.Ravichander, learned counsel for the 1 respondent/decree holder.
3.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel would firstly contend that when a
specific remedy is made available for an obstructor to raise objections and ventilate his
grievances by invoking Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also
setting out the manner in which such an application should be disposed of, the Executing
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:35 pm )

2026:MHC:4390
Court clearly fell in error in not even numbering the application and dismissing the
same, on the ground of maintainability. It is the further submission of
Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners were not even parties to
the eviction proceedings and that the petitioners claim title under an auction purchaser,
who had purchased the suit property way back on 17-11-1930. The learned Senior
st
Counsel would also rely on the application filed by the 1 respondent/decree holder,
invoking Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC against M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures for removal of
the obstruction raised by the said M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures.
4.Taking me through the impugned order, as well as the application filed in
EA.SR.No.10398 of 2025, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel would submit
that the Executing Court ought to have numbered the application, given an opportunity
st
to the 1 respondent to file a counter and thereafter, conducted due enquiry and disposed
of the matter, in accordance with law. He would also bring to my notice that several
documents have been relied on by the petitioners in support of the obstruction
application and none of such documents have even been tested by the Executing Court.
The learned Senior Counsel would therefore pray for the revision petition being allowed.
st
5.Per contra, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1
respondent would state that after the order of eviction came to be passed in favour of the
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:35 pm )

2026:MHC:4390
st
1 respondent, one M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures had obstructed to execution of the decree
st
in favour of the 1 respondent. He would further contend that E.A.SR.No.3347 of 2026
came to be filed by the Union Territory of Puducherry, represented by its Chief Secretary
st
and others, as third party obstructors, claiming that the 1 respondent has no right to the
tenanted premises and by playing fraud and misrepresentation, the decree has been
obtained and therefore, the decree itself is void and unenforceable. However, the said
EA.SR.No. 3347 of 2026 came to be dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 28-04-
2026, finding that the said application is not maintainable, since the Government had not
yet taken possession of the tenanted premises and therefore, it was open to the decree
holder to proceed against the person in actual physical possession of the tenanted
premises, namely the judgment debtor.
6.The learned Senior Counsel, Mr.A.K.Sriram, would further state that the said
order has become final and therefore, the petitioners thereafter cannot take up similar
contentions and seek to obstruct to the execution of the delivery warrant in favour of the
st
1 respondent. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely on the recent decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. Kamal , reported
in 2026 (2) MWN (Civil) 365 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while
deciding an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, framing of issues and
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:35 pm )

2026:MHC:4390
recording of evidence is not automatic and if pleadings and materials disclose no prima
facie right and objection, then even a summary rejection is permissible.
7.The learned Senior Counsel, Mr.A.K.Sriram, would also invite my attention to
the attempt made by M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures, represented by its partners Shiva
Shanmugam and Sivaraman, who have obstructed to deliver possession in favour of the
st
1 respondent, which necessitated the decree holder to file an application in EA.No.1 of
2018 under XXI Rule 97 of CPC against the said firm M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures,
represented by Shiva Shanmugam and Sivaraman. The said application came to be
allowed, as against which, the third party obstructors also filed A.S.No.35 2025, which
came to be dismissed on 04-03-2026 by the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Puducherry,
confirming the order passed by the Executing Court, allowing the Order XXI Rule 97 of
CPC application. Relying on the same, learned Senior Counsel contends that the present
petitioners are also set up, only by the original tenant, who suffered an order of eviction
and the Executing Court has rightly exercised its discretion not to even entertain the
application for obstructing to the execution of warrant for delivery in the execution
proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore pray for the revision petition
being dismissed.
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:35 pm )

2026:MHC:4390
8.I have carefully considered the submissions advance by the learned Senior
Counsel on both side.
st
9.The 1 respondent filed HRCOP.No.7 of 2015 before the learned Rent
Controller cum Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry, for eviction against against
one Honesty Engineers and Contractors Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee.
st
Pending HRCOP, the 1 respondent filed an application under Section 11(4) of Act 18 of
1960, which came to be allowed and a conditional order was passed in I.A.No.23 of
2015, directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. Admittedly, the tenant did not
comply with the order, which resulted in further proceedings being stopped and an order
of eviction being passed in HRCOP.No.7 of 2015 on 09-09-2016. The said decree was
put to execution in REP.No.14 of 2017. The said proceedings came to be initiated
against the tenant, namely Honesty Engineers and Contractors Trust, represented by its
Managing Trustee.
10.Pending the said execution petition, as already discussed, Union of India
attempted to obstruct and similarly M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures also attempted to obstruct
st
and both the said obstruction applications ended in favour of the 1 respondent/landlord.
In other words, when the application filed by the landlord themselves under Order XXI
Rule 97 of CPC against M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures, represented by its partners, came to
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:35 pm )

2026:MHC:4390
be allowed, it clearly implies that the Executing Court has found the said
M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures to be in possession of the tenant premises and testing their
right of occupation, also found that their possession was only as a sub-tenant,
unauthorised and therefore, they were bound by the order of eviction passed against the
chief tenant.
11.As rightly contended by Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel, the very
fact that the said Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC application filed by the landlord/decree
holder came to be allowed, only implies that according to the decree holder, the person
in physical possession of the tenanted premises and who was sought to be dispossessed
was M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures.
12.Today, admittedly, the present revision petitioners are not claiming under the
said M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures, who, the Executing Court found to be only a sub-tenant,
claiming under the original tenant and therefore, it could not claim any better or
independent right. The present petitioners are claiming to be in lawful possession of the
st
tenanted premises and claim that the 1 respondent is not even the actual owner of the
premises. It is also the contention of the petitioners that admittedly the petitioners are
third parties to all proceedings. Therefore, there is merit in the submission made by
Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel that merely because the application and the
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:35 pm )

2026:MHC:4390
objection raised by the Union of India, Puducherry, was dismissed and the obstruction
application filed against M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures came to be allowed, will not bind the
revision petitioners who are admittedly not claiming under either Union of India,
Puducherry or M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures. On the other hand, the petitioners have
claimed to be in physical possession of the tenanted premises and in support their lawful
possession and independent right and title, even along with the application under Order
XXI Rule 97 of CPC, the petitioners have filed as many as 14 documents, right from
04.03.1930 onwards, upto 21.03.2024.
13.Unfortunately, the Executing Court, without even testing the objections of the
petitioners and even considering any of the said 14 documents, has summarily thrown
out the obstruction application filed by the petitioners. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC is a complete Code by itself and the objections that
may be raised at the stage of taking possession of the decreetal property cannot even be
tried by way of a separate suit. The only avenue open is, therefore, to conduct due
enquiry at that particular point of time, namely after filing of the application under Order
XXI Rule 97 of CPC and decide the same in accordance with law, by following the
mandate of Rules contemplated therefor under Order XXI of CPC.
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:35 pm )

2026:MHC:4390
14.In Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory's case , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
found the objections under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC by close family members of the
judgment debtor and therefore, there was not only knowledge, but the delay and conduct
of the obstructor weighed in the mind of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to hold that there
was no error in summarily rejecting the obstruction application that was filed only as an
after thought and to delay the execution of the decree. I do not see how this decision will
apply to the facts of the present case. I have already discussed the nature of objection
made by the revision petitioners, to be independent of the claim of the judgment debtor
or even the earlier obstructors, including the Union of India, Puducherry as well as
M/s.Kathiravan Furnitures. In such circumstances, the Executing Court has clearly fell
in error in dismissing the Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC application at the nascent stage,
without even numbering the said application. In fact, in a recent decision in Mary Kala
Vs. Hussaini Begum in CRP.No.2949 of 2026 dated 21.07.2026 , I held that such
application for obstruction cannot be decided in a summary manner, especially when
pleadings and documents in support of the said application warrant a detailed and roving
enquiry to be conducted. The ratio laid down in the said case would also squarely apply
to the facts of the present case.
15.In the light of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order
dated 28.04.2026 in E.A.SR.No.10398 of 2025 in H.R.C.E.P.No.14 of 2017 in
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:35 pm )

2026:MHC:4390
H.R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Puducherry, is set
aside. The Executing Court is directed to number E.A.SR.No.10398 of 2025 and shall
afford a fair opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their objection, including letting of
oral and documentary evidence. However, the Executing Court shall not grant
unnecessary adjournments to the petitioners and ensure that enquiry is completed in the
Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC application within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and subject to the result of the said Order XXI Rule 97 of
CPC application, it is open to the Executing Court to pass such further or other orders in
the execution petition. In the event of the respondents/decree holders being desirous of
leading any oral/documentary evidence, then the same shall also be permitted. No costs.
Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30.10.2026
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
ata
To
The Principal District Munsif, Puducherry.
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:35 pm )

2026:MHC:4390
P.B.BALAJI. J,
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
CRP.No.3107 of 2026
30.10.2026
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:35 pm )