CRP No. 2476 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-07-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP No. 2476 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 10567 OF 2026 1. Rajendran Sarangabani Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Margadarsi Chits Pvt Ltd Rep. by Foreman, A-Wing, Flat No. 1 And 2, 2nd Floor, Parsh Manere, 602, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. 2.M.P.Shahul Hameed Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the rejection order dated 17.01.2026 in EA(SR)No.17037 of 2026 in EP.No.1608 of 2020 and order the same to be numbered and to decide the same as per Order 21 Rule 58(2) of CPC, pending on the file of the X Asst. City Civil Judge, Chennai by allowing this CRP. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Raja Jeyaraman For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Shivakumaran ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in E.A. (SR) No. 17037 of 2026 in E.P. No. 1608 of 2020. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2476 of 2026 2. In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner, who is the third party, under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, challenging the order made against the property has been dismissed. Admittedly, the petitioner is only a lessee under the second respondent, who is the 3rd judgment debtor against whom the first respondent is having a decree for recovery of money through ARC No. 136 of 2015. Only to execute the decree, the first respondent filed the execution petition against the second respondent and other judgment debtors. 3. The petitioner claims to be a lessee under the second respondent in this Civil Revision Petition. The trial Court has rightly rejected the petitioner's application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, challenging the order of attachment made against the property on the ground that the petitioner is a mere lessee and he does not have any better interest or priority over the property, which is attached in the execution proceedings on account of the non-payment of the decretal debt of the judgment debtors, which includes the second respondent. 4. If the petitioner has got any right over the property, which was let out to him under the unregistered lease agreement dated 05.03.2015 by the second respondent, the petitioner will have to work out his remedy only with the second respondent and not through an application filed before the executing Court, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2476 of 2026 which is deciding the execution of a decree passed in favour of the first respondent against the second respondent and other judgment debtors. The Court below has rightly dismissed the petitioner's application through a detailed order by giving sufficient reasons. 5. This Court does not find any infirmity in the reasons given by the executing Court for dismissing the petitioner's application in E.A. (SR) No. 17037 of 2026 in E.P. No. 1608 of 2020 filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC. Since there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10-07-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ab To The X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2476 of 2026 ABDUL QUDDHOSE J. ab CRP No. 2476 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 10567 OF 2026 10-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis