__________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No.3676 of 2026 & CMP.No.15938 of 2026 Padmavathy Ammal (Deceased) 1.M.K.Kalai Selvan 2.P.P.Poosammal 3.M.K.Senthamarai Selvan 4.S.Senthamizh Selvi S.Tamizh Selvi (Deceased) Vetri Selvi (Deceased) 5.Navamani Selvi 6.Bharathi Selvi 7.Thiruvarut Selvi 8.Porselvi Indira (Deceased) 9.Rajakumari 10.Murali 11.Priya 12.Sujatha 13.Gayathri 14.Muruganantham 15.Lavanya ..Petitioners Vs M.Krishnaveni (Deceased) V.Malar Kodi (Deceased) 1.M.Meiyazhagan 2.M.Manoharan 3.D.Manimegalai R.Mangalakshmi (Deceased) 4.M.Manivannan 5.M.Madivannan 6.Premalatha 7.V.Rajakumar 8.V.Sasikumar 9.V.Rameshkumar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page2 of 4 10.P.Rubalatha 11.V.Srilekha 12.V.Jeevitha 13.S.Sangeetha 14.R.Yogaraj ..Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order dated 16.06.2026 in E.P.No.752 of 2021 in O.S.No.2818 of 2004 on the file of the learned XXVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.K.Rajaraman For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Manickavel ORDER This revision has been filed to set aside the docket order dated 16.06.2026 in E.P.No.752 of 2021 in O.S.No.2818 of 2004 on the file of the learned XXVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3.The parties attempted to settle the disputes. However, the settlement talks have not been successful. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page3 of 4 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would only state that there is a testamentary suit pending on the file of the Original Side in T.O.S.No.38 of 2011 and the result in the said testamentary suit would have a direct bearing on the disputes, which are subject matter of the execution petition. He would also state that the decree protects a 2 feet passage right for the petitioners and though the petitioners are claiming 5 feet, at least 2 feet, which has been carved out in the decree, should be honoured. 5.The learned counsel for the respondents states that the pendency of the testamentary suit cannot come in the way of the successful decree holders executing the decree in their favour. He also fairly states that the decree is sought to be executed, as if stands and the 2 feet passage, if provided in the decree in A schedule, would be respected. The testamentary suit is only concerning with B schedule property. In the light of the above, I do not find any merits in the revision. 6.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It shall be open to the respondents to execute the decree as if stands, pertaining to A schedule property. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 22.07.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page4 of 4 P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA To The XXVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. CRP No.3676 of 2026 22.07.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis