IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-06-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 5961 of 2025 and CMP No.29465 of 2025 1. Malini D/o. Mahendran, Res. at No.2/32, Brighton Road, Pulianthope, Chennai - 012. and 3 Others 2.Olimani D/o. Mahendran, Res. at No.2/32, Brighton Road, Pulianthope, Chennai - 012. 3.Charles S/o. Mahendran, Res. at No.2/32, Brighton Road, Pulianthope, Chennai - 012. 4.Joyee D/o. Mahendran, Res. at No.2/32, Brighton Road, Pulianthope, Chennai - 012. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Visaka W/O. Surendran, No.53/22, Pallandu Street, Agaram, Chennai - 600082. 2.S. Dharmaraj S/o . Surendran, Res. at No.53/22, Pallandu Street, Agaram, Chennai - 082. 3.S. Jayakanthan S/o . Surendran, Res. at No.53/22, Pallandu Street, Agaram, Chennai - 082. Respondent(s) Revision filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 08.09.2025 in E.P.No.1326 of 2023 against O.S.No.1432 of 2014 by X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioner(s): M/s. N. Seshadri For Respondent(s): M/s.T.Sudhan Raj ORDER Before the Executing Court, the decree holders filed E.P.No.1326 of 2023 and the Executing Court has ordered delivery. Challenging the delivery order passed in EP No.1326 of 2023 dated 08.09.2025. the judgment debtors have preferred the above revision. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/judgment debtors states that the revision petitioners/judgment debtors are disputing the preliminary decree as well as the identity of the property and also claimed that by long possession, they perfected title by adverse possession. Therefore, the order of delivery, as such is not a valid one and therefore, they pray to stay the proceedings. 3. On perusal of the records, it is seen that in all the proceedings, the revision petitioners/judgment debtors have appeared and preliminary decree was passed and thereafter, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed before passing the final decree. At the time of execution of the Warrant by the Advocate Commissioner, the judgment debtors were very much available in the property and after the Advocate Commissioner’s Report, the final decree was passed in the year 2020, wherein, the major share of 916 sq.ft was allotted to the plaintiffs and the defendants were allotted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 153 sq.ft. As per the preliminary decree, the property was divided into six equal shares and the plaintiffs/decree holders were allotted with 5/6 share and only 1/6 was allotted to the defendants, who are the co-owners. 4. As on date, the final decree or the Commissioner’s Report was not challenged and no stay was granted by any Court of law. Therefore, the decree holders are entitled to execute the decree. 5. Under such circumstances, the revision, as such, is not maintainable and the civil revision petition is dismissed. The decree holders are entitled to proceed with to execute the delivery warrant. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08.06.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To The X City Civil Court, Chennai https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.V.THAMILSELVI.,J sr CRP No. 5961 of 2025 08.06.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis