Post-Decree Buyer Who Fought Execution For Years Cannot Reopen Decree-Holder’s Heirs’ Addition On Unsupported Fraud Claim, Madras HC Holds

In brief

The question

1. Whether Mythili, as a purchaser claiming through the judgment debtor, had locus standi to seek reopening of the order bringing Rajasekar’s alleged legal representatives on record.

The court held

The Court dismissed both Civil Revision Petitions, finding them without merit and bona fides, and found no infirmity in the Executing Court’s orders dismissing the applications to reopen E.A. No. 61 of 2024 and to stay further proceedings.

It also directed

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

Rajasekar obtained a decree for specific performance against R. Bhashyam in O.S. No. 78 of 1991 on 13 March 1995.

p. 6

Mythili purchased the property from Bhashyam on 7 April 1997 and later filed several applications in the execution proceedings, including applications under Order XXI Rule 97 and Section 47 CPC; those applications were dismissed or dismissed for default.

p. 6, 8

After Rajasekar’s death, Selvi, Pradeepa and Vivek were brought on record as his legal representatives in E.A. No. 61 of 2024, allowed on 5 April 2025; a subsequent application to amend the execution proceedings was allowed on 25 June 2025.

p. 7

Mythili sought to reopen E.A. No. 61 of 2024, alleging that the persons brought on record were not Rajasekar’s legal heirs and that fraud had been committed, and also sought a stay pending that application. The Executing Court dismissed both applications. Mythili challenged those orders in these revisions.

pp. 3–5, 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether Mythili, as a purchaser claiming through the judgment debtor, had locus standi to seek reopening of the order bringing Rajasekar’s alleged legal representatives on record.

pp. 7–8, 10

ii.2. Whether the alleged fraud concerning the legal representatives was substantiated sufficiently to warrant reopening E.A. No. 61 of 2024.

pp. 4, 8–10

03Law Applied

Section 115 CPC was the basis for the revisions.

p. 3

The Court treated an allegation of fraud as requiring substantiation by at least some material on record; an unsupported allegation, without evidence, did not justify reopening the earlier order.

p. 8

The Court also upheld the Executing Court’s conclusion that Mythili lacked locus standi to challenge or seek reopening of E.A. No. 61 of 2024.

p. 10

Mythili relied on A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported as CDJ 2007 SC 293, in support of her fraud argument, but the Court rejected the challenge on the evidentiary and locus grounds stated above.

p. 5 · pp. 8–10

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 115 Section 47

04Reasoning

The Court noted that Mythili had pursued multiple applications opposing execution of the 1995 decree and that her purchase occurred after the decree.

p. 6, 8

Although she alleged that the persons brought on record were not Rajasekar’s legal heirs, she produced no documents, gave no evidence, and did not enter the witness box to support that claim; her counsel also accepted that she had no material showing they were not the legal heirs.

p. 8

The Court therefore found no substantiated basis to reopen E.A. No. 61 of 2024 and agreed that Mythili lacked locus standi to do so.

pp. 9–10