Facts
The first respondent (plaintiff) obtained a decree for declaration and recovery of possession against the petitioners (defendants) in O.S.No.54 of 2010 on 28.02.2025.
Source reference: p.2The petitioners filed an appeal with a 5-day delay condonation application (I.A.No.1 of 2025), and notice was served on the first respondent on 28.08.2025.
Source reference: p.15Despite knowledge of the pending appeal proceedings, the first respondent filed an Execution Petition (E.P.No.77 of 2025) on 22.09.2025, falsely stating that no appeal had been preferred.
Source reference: p.16The Executing Court dispensed with notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC, ordered delivery of possession on 25.09.2025, and subsequently suo motu ordered police protection.
Source reference: p.11, 16The Amina effected delivery on 24.11.2025 with police aid while the property was locked and household articles were inside.
Source reference: p.17On 27.11.2025, the Executing Court dismissed the petitioners' stay application (E.A.No.06 of 2025) as infructuous and terminated the E.P.
Source reference: p.3Issues
Whether the execution of a decree based on a false representation regarding the pendency of an appeal constitutes an abuse of process of law and fraud on the court.
Source reference: p.16/para 18Whether the Executing Court and the Amina committed procedural irregularities by ordering and seeking police protection without recording reasons or verifying obstruction.
Source reference: p.17/para 19Law Applied
Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, which stipulates that filing an appeal does not automatically stay execution unless ordered by the Appellate Court.
Source reference: p.12The principle from *Sanjiv Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar* regarding the necessity of a stay order.
Source reference: p.12The guidelines from *Abdul Sukhure Bhai v. Durai Kuppusway* [2006 (2) CTC 211], which mandate that police aid is not to be granted mechanically and the Court must record specific reasons for such an order.
Source reference: p.6The doctrine that suppression of material facts and misleading the Court to obtain an order amounts to fraud.
Source reference: p.18Reasoning
The Court observed that the first respondent committed a "fraud played on the court" by claiming no appeal was filed despite having received notice of the delay condonation application in the appeal.
Source reference: p.18The Court found that the Executing Court showed "enormous interest" in advancing the proceedings based on this falsehood.
Source reference: p.16Regarding the delivery process, the Court noted that the Amina exceeded his limits by seeking police protection at the first instance without any evidence of obstruction, violating established judicial guidelines.
Source reference: p.17-18The Court determined that the combined effect of the first respondent’s suppression of facts and the Executing Court’s procedural haste resulted in a "glaring procedural violation" that necessitated setting aside the delivery.
Source reference: p.17Holding
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the orders dated 27.11.2025 in E.A.No.06 of 2025 and E.P.No.77 of 2025.
The Court directed the parties to maintain *status-quo ante* (restoring the position prior to the delivery order of 25.09.2025) until the Appellate Court decides on the petitioners' interlocutory application for stay.
Source reference: p.19The first respondent was granted liberty to file a fresh E.P. only after the outcome of the stay application in the first appeal.
Source reference: p.19The Court also ordered the High Court Legal Services Committee to pay ₹10,000 to the Legal Aid Counsel for the second respondent.
Source reference: p.20Original Court PDF
Josephine Parimala & Others v. Arnald Arasu & Another [2026:MHC:814]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in