K.N. MARAPPASAMI (DIED), DHANALAKSHMI SARAVABHAUMAN ASSOCIATES, TR. GAYATHRI,FRANGKELIN S,ATCHAYA vs S.A. MUNUSAMY NAIDU (DIED) 1. S.M. LAKSHMI NARASIMMA — CRP/623/2024
Case under U/s 115 of C.p.c Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 08th June 2026.
CNR: HCMA010120072024
Filing Number
CRP/8245/2024
Filing Date
22-01-2024
Registration No
CRP/623/2024
Registration Date
07-02-2024
Judge
Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI
Coram
Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
Civil Revision Petition ( 166 )
Sub-Category
S. 115 of CPC ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
JUDICIALSECTION
Decision Date
08th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K.N. MARAPPASAMI (DIED), DHANALAKSHMI SARAVABHAUMAN ASSOCIATES, TR. GAYATHRI,FRANGKELIN S,ATCHAYA
SATHISH RAJ
Respondent(s)
S.A. MUNUSAMY NAIDU (DIED) 1. S.M. LAKSHMI NARASIMMA
Adv. M. KARTHIK 1123
RENUKA DEVI
SASIKALA RANI
LALITHA DEVI
Hearing History
Judge: Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI
FOR ADMISSION (CRP)
FOR ADMISSION (CRP)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2024 | FOR ADMISSION (CRP) |
| 25-03-2024 | FOR ADMISSION (CRP) |
Orders
Case Summary: CRP No. 623/2024 Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by judgment debtors seeking to stay execution proceedings. The court found that the judgment debtors had neglected pending second appeals for 12-15 years without obtaining any stay order, indicating weak defense. Since the original suit was filed in 1988 and the plaintiffs (senior citizens and rightful property owners) had waited decades for possession, the court allowed execution to proceed. As a humanitarian measure, the court directed plaintiffs to deposit ₹1,50,000 with the execution court within one week, allowing judgment debtors to withdraw it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CRP No. 623/2024 Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by judgment debtors seeking to stay execution proceedings. The court found that the judgment debtors had neglected pending second appeals for 12-15 years without obtaining any stay order, indicating weak defense. Since the original suit was filed in 1988 and the plaintiffs (senior citizens and rightful property owners) had waited decades for possession, the court allowed execution to proceed. As a humanitarian measure, the court directed plaintiffs to deposit ₹1,50,000 with the execution court within one week, allowing judgment debtors to withdraw it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts