M.Manoj, v. G.Vairavan,

ORDER This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court returning the application filed by the petitioner seeking adjudication of his rights.

2.It is seen from the typed set of papers that the first respondent herein/ 21st defendant in the main suit filed E.P.No.73 of 2016 seeking delivery of the property allotted to him in the final decree.

3.The petitioner herein filed instant application seeking adjudication of his rights. The said application was returned by the Executing Court on the ground that the property was delivered on 08.06.2024 and hence, the petitioner could not maintain the petition before the Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even if the property is delivered and the petitioner is dispossessed, he can very well maintain an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5.If the petition filed by the petitioner is returned by raising maintainability issue, it is always open to the petitioner to offer his explanation and re-present the papers. Instead of following the said course, the petitioner rushed this Court by invoking supervisory jurisdiction. A revision filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage. The proper course to the petitioner is to re-present the papers by offering his explanation.

6.Therefore, the petitioner is directed to re-present the returned execution appliaction within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by offering his explanation. The Executing Court shall consider the same and if satisfied, proceed to number the application and dispose it of on its own merits. On the other hand, if the Executing Court is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the matter S. SOUNTHAR.J. Rmk shall be called in open Court and after hearing the petitioner, order shall be passed on merits.

7.With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

24.07.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Rmk Note : Registry is directed to return the original papers to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after obtaining usual endorsement. To

1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.R.P(MD).No.2017 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR C.R.P(MD).No.2017 of 2026 M.Manoj ... Petitioner Vs 1.G.Vairavan 2.M.K.Y.Mohammed Kasim 3.M.Abdul Malik 4.M.Sam Sudeen 5.M.Jalajudeen 6.M.Jalil Ahmed 7.K.Rabiyathulpasariya 8.M.Ameerusunsha 9.M.Nazeerunnisha 10.M.Jailani 11.M.Nigaaraulthana 12.M.Syed Ahamed 13.A.Jagitha Beevi 14.H.Rabiya Beevi 15.M.Neejar Ahamed 16.M.Amirudeen 17.Najama 18.S.Thaji Nisha 19.K.Hameesha 20.M.Thageera 21.M.Sabeesha 22.M.Jahangeer 23.B.Poujiya Begam 24.B.Asif 25.B.Arif 26.B.Habesh 27.M.Serajudeen 28.M.Syed Ibrahim 29.R.Fathima Beevi 30.R.Yashmin 31.R.Sabana Ashmi 32.M.Aysha Beevi 33.M.Fathima Beevi 34.M.Syed Ibrahim 35.M.Raigana Begam 36.M.Jiyavudeen 37.H.Hametha Begam ... Respondents (2 to 37 not contesting parties) Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order dated 19.06.2026 in unnumbered E.A.No. /2026 in E.P.No.73 of 2016 in O.S.No.235 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul and number the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram for M/s.R.B.Law Associates