Kannada Veerasaiva Saineegar Sangam vs The State of Tamil Nadu

CRP.No.2481 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.2481 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010884762026}
and
CMP.No.10541 of 2026
Kannada Veerasaiva Saineegar Sangam
rep. by its Secretary,
Nos.7 and 8, Malli Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Tiruvannamalai District, Arni
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the District Collector,
Tiruvannamalai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair Order and Decretal Order in E.P.No.69
of 2011 in O.S.No.63 of 1973 dated 05.03.2026 on the file of the Additional
Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Srimathi V.
For Respondent : Mr.P.Sunil
Government Advocate
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRP.No.2481 of 2026
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the
Executing Court in E.P.No.69 of 2011 in O.S.No.63 of 1973, dated 05.03.2026
dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioner seeking to execute the
direction given in the decree passed in LPA.No.139 of 1988, dated 29.10.1997.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein obtained a decree against
the respondent in LPA.No.139 of 1988. The decretal portion of the order passed
by this Court in LPA.No.139 of 1988, dated 29.10.1997, reads as follows:-
“Therefore, instead of the prayer sought for in the suit we
are inclined to grant a decree directing the State Government to
assign the third item of the suit property, namely Survey No.533 of
the extent of 4 acres 44 cents to the plaintiff – Sangam within four
months from the date of an application to be made by the plaintiff
in this regard. In other respects, the suit will stand dismissed as not
pressed by the plaintiff/appellant. Letters Patent Appeal will stand
allowed to the above extent granting a decree as stated above.
There will be no order as to costs.”
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRP.No.2481 of 2026
3. The LPA was disposed of on 29.10.1997. The petitioner filed execution
petition in E.P.No.69 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by the Executing
Court on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
come before this Court.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the respondent failed to act in accordance with the direction issued in the
LPA decree. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in
W.P.No.21756 of 2000 seeking assignment of land. The said petition was
allowed on 20.11.2004, directing the respondents therein to pass orders as per
the decree in LPA. The respondents filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.64 of 2005
and the same was allowed on 11.09.2007 setting aside the order passed by the
learned Judge. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review application in Review
Application No.32 of 2009 seeking to review of the judgment passed by the
Division Bench in the writ appeal. The said review application was disposed of
with a modification that the petitioner shall workout its remedy before the
appropriate forum, in case the decree passed by the Competent Court has not
been complied with. Based on the liberty granted by the Division Bench in the
review application, the petitioner filed the present execution petition and the
Executing Court committed a serious error in not taking into consideration the
liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Court.
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRP.No.2481 of 2026
5. The LPA decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 29.10.1997
directing the respondent to assign the subject land within a period of four
months. The said four months period expired on 28.02.1998.
6. A perusal of the LPA decree would indicate that the direction was
issued to the respondents to assign subject land, therefore, it is in the nature of
mandatory injunction. The Executing Court rightly came to the conclusion that
Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable to the present case and
said that the petitioner should have filed execution petition within a period of
three years from the date of expiry of the time limit prescribed in the LPA
decree. The said period expired as early as 01.03.2001. However, the present
execution petition has been filed only on 27.08.2009. Therefore, the Executing
Court rightly came to the conclusion that the present execution petition is
hopelessly barred by limitation.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently
contended that in view of the liberty granted by the Division Bench of this
Court, the Executing Court ought not to have rejected the execution petition on
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRP.No.2481 of 2026
the ground of limitation. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court
in Review Application No.32 of 2009, dated 29.07.2009 reads as follows:-
“8. As far as limitation is concerned, we are not expressing
any opinion, though it will be open to the Kannada Association to
bring to the notice of the court of competent jurisdiction that they
were pursuing the remedy before the writ court, which gave rise to
the writ appeal.”
8. Therefore, it is clear that the Division Bench of this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the question of limitation and the petitioner was
relegated to workout his remedy before the Executing Court. The liberty granted
to the petitioner to work out the remedy before Executing Court will not have
the effect of enlarging the period of limitation.
9. A Division Bench of this Court in Vellaiamma and another vs.
Subbulakshmi and others , reported in 2024 SCC Online Mad 8344 , held that
merely because liberty is granted to a party to initiate proceedings, the same
cannot be treated as a license to invoke the provisions of the Limitation Act, the
relevant observation reads as follows:-
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRP.No.2481 of 2026
“31. The next issue that arises for consideration is as to:
whether the liberty granted by the Writ Court can be taken
advantage of? We are conscious that the earlier suit filed was not
prosecuted and was allowed to be dismissed. However, while
dismissing the Writ Petition, the Writ Court had merely stated that
the plaintiff can approach the competent civil Court to ventilate
her grievance, in accordance with law. An observation in order of
the Writ court would not amount to permission being granted
under Order XXIII C.P.C or having an effect of overriding the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Limitation Act.
Therefore, merely because the plaintiff was given a liberty to
approach the competent Court, it would not clothe her with a right
to file a subsequent suit in gross violation of the Order XXIII Rule
1 C.P.C and without regard to the provisions of the Limitation
Act.”
10. In Arifa and others vs. Abhiman Apartment Co Operative Housing
Society Ltd. and others reported in MANU/SC/0938/2025 = 2025 INSC 875 ,
the Apex Court held that leave granted to withdraw suit with liberty to file fresh
suit on same cause of action will not save period of limitation. The relevant
observation reads as follows:-
“7. … … … … No cause of action can be claimed on the
liberty reserved, which is only on just exceptions including
limitation, which in any event has to go by the period prescribed in
the statute of limitation. The High Court has further found that
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRP.No.2481 of 2026
there can also be no resort to Section 14 of the Limitation Act,
since the suit already laid was not before a wrong forum but was
not properly framed. Even when a suit is withdrawn with leave of
the Court to file a fresh suit, under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC
limitation applies with full force as per Rule 2 of Order 23.”
11. In the light of the settled proposition of law that the liberty granted by
the Court will not enlarge the period of limitation, I am unable to accept the
contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Admittedly, petitioner has not filed any application seeking exclusion of time
taken by him in prosecuting the matter before Writ Court. Further, it is seen
from typed set of papers, pending writ petition filed by the petitioner, he
simultaneously prosecuted two execution petition also and the first one got
dismissed for default and the subsequent one got not pressed. Hence, we cannot
say the petitioner bonafidely prosecuted proceedings against respondent before
another forum as he prosecuted execution proceedings before Executing Court
simultaneously during pendency of writ petition. The petitioner also failed to
file Execution Petition immediately after allowing of writ appeal. The
Executing Court rightly came to the conclusion that the execution petition filed
by the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation. I do not find any error in the
impugned order passed by the Executing Court in E.P.No.69 of 2011 in
O.S.No.63 of 1973, dated 05.03.2026.
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRP.No.2481 of 2026
12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
dm
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRP.No.2481 of 2026
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Court,
Tiruvannamalai.
2.The District Collector,
Tiruvannamalai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )

CRP.No.2481 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR J.
dm
CRP.No.2481 of 2026
and
CMP.No.10541 of 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:05:09 pm )