Facts
The petitioners filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 challenging the Senior Bailiff/Amin’s report dated 7 October 2025, which recorded delivery of the property to the court-auction purchaser.
Source reference: p. 1They alleged that movable property inside the premises had not been recorded; the judgment refers to its value as approximately Rs. 50 lakhs in the earlier hearing account, but as Rs. 50,000 in its later summary of the challenge.
Source reference: p. 1–2, 4At the hearing on 1 June 2026, the petitioners also relied on a status quo order said to have been granted by the Supreme Court.
Source reference: p. 2The first respondent subsequently informed the High Court that the relevant SLP had been dismissed on 1 October 2026, and the Court held that no status quo order remained in force.
Source reference: p. 2–4Issues
1. Whether the Amin’s report could be challenged by filing a civil revision petition on the ground that movable property in the premises was omitted from the report.
Source reference: p. 42. Whether the petitioners should instead pursue the alleged omission through an application before the Executing Court.
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The petition invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Source reference: p. 1The Court held that an allegation that movable property was omitted from an Amin’s report should be raised through an appropriate application before the Executing Court, and that the report was not amenable to challenge by revision on that ground.
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court treated the alleged omission of movable property as a matter to be addressed in the execution proceedings, rather than a ground for revisional interference with the Amin’s report.
Source reference: p. 4It therefore directed the petitioners to seek relief before the Executing Court in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 4The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP and concluded that no status quo order remained in force.
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The High Court declined to entertain the revision petition and dismissed it.
The High Court granted the petitioners liberty to file an appropriate application before the Executing Court in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 4It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
KumaravelvsN.Palanisamy
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
