C.R.P(MD)No.2279 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.08.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA C.R.P(MD)No.2279 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.11044 of 2026 1.Sekar ... Petitioner(s) – Vs. - 1.Sheik Alaudheen 2.Jeyalakshmi 3.Manohar 4.Chinnadurai 5.Senthil 6.Vennila ... Respondent(s) Prayer :Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order and decree passed dated 25.06.2026 made in E.P.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.104 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, Thanjavur District and allow this Civil Revision Petition and thus render justice. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.2279 of 2026 For Petitioner :M/s.G.Gomathisankar ORDER This civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.06.2026 passed in E.P.No.5 of 2024 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Papanasam, Thanjavur District. 2.The E.P. has been filed by the decree-holder/first respondent under Order XXI Rule 35 of the CPC for execution of the decree passed in O.S. No. 104 of 2008. Under the said decree, the sixth judgment-debtor was directed to remove the septic tank put up in the suit property within three months. As the sixth judgment- debtor failed to comply with the decree within the stipulated period, the decree became executable. Accordingly, the Execution Petition was allowed. 3.The mandatory injunction sought by the respondent was rejected by the Court. Without considering the said finding, the Executing Court proceeded to order execution/delivery. Such an order, having been passed without taking into consideration the denial of the mandatory injunction, is legally unsustainable. 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.2279 of 2026 5.On perusal of the decree, it is seen that the petitioner/6th defendant was directed to remove the septic tank put up in the suit property and hand over the property to the plaintiff. Though the learned Trial Judge had already granted possession of the suit property, the relief of mandatory injunction was denied. However, such denial cannot be construed as a total negation of the relief, particularly when the decree specifically directed the petitioner to remove the septic tank and hand over the possession of the property to the plaintiff. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the decree within the stipulated period, the decree-holder was justified in filing the Execution Petition, and the Executing Court rightly ordered delivery in accordance with the decree. This Court finds no error or infirmity in the order passed by the Executing Court warranting interference in revision. 6.In view thereof, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14.08.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No NS https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.2279 of 2026 R.POORNIMA , J. Ns To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, Thanjavur District 2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.R.P(MD)No.2279 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.11044 of 2026 14.08.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis