Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP No. 618 of 2026) and a Civil Revision Petition (CRP SR No. 1446 of 2026) filed before the Madras High Court. The petitioner, S.N. Gayathri, sought leave to file a CRP against an adverse order passed in EA No. 2 of 2023 in EP No. 2324 of 2009 on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondents included R.T. Gurumoorthy, T.M. Thilagavathy, and M/s. Meenakshi Engineering Works represented by its substituted partners S.N. Lalitha and S.N. Balaji. During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner stated that respondents 3 and 4 (S.N. Lalitha and S.N. Balaji) had filed separate affidavits undertaking to hand over vacant possession of the property on or before 31.03.2026. The court reviewed these affidavits. The petitioner's counsel further submitted that the petitioner, who resides abroad, was unable to file a similar affidavit but, on instructions, withdrew all her claims and objections in the CMP. The court took the affidavits of undertaking on record and directed respondents 3 and 4 to abide by their undertakings without seeking further indulgence. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed, and the Civil Revision Petition was rejected at the SR stage itself, with no order as to costs. The judgment was delivered by Justice P.B. Balaji on 30-01-2026.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Claims - Undertaking to Vacate - The petitioner sought leave to file a Civil Revision Petition against an order in execution proceedings. The respondents 3 and 4 filed affidavits undertaking to hand over vacant possession by 31.03.2026. The petitioner, residing abroad, also withdrew all claims and objections. The court took the affidavits on record and dismissed the CMP and rejected the CRP at SR stage, holding that the parties' undertakings and withdrawal resolved the matter. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking leave to file CRP and the CRP itself should be entertained in light of the respondents' undertaking to vacate the property and the petitioner's withdrawal of claims.
Final Decision
The Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed and the Civil Revision Petition is rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs.
Law Points
- Withdrawal of claims
- undertaking to vacate
- dismissal of petition
- rejection at SR stage
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 27
CMP No. 618 of 2026 in CRP SR No. 1446 of 2026
For Appellant(s): Mr. V. Ramamurthy, For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Senthilnathan
1. R.T. Gurumoorthy, 2. T.M. Thilagavathy, 3. M/s. Meenakshi Engineering Works rep. by its Substituted Partners S.N. Lalitha, 4. M/s. Meenakshi Engineering Works rep. by its Substituted Partners S.N. Balaji
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking leave to file Civil Revision Petition against an order in execution proceedings.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought leave to file CRP to set aside the order in EA No.2 of 2023 in EP No.2324 of 2009 and the order dated 5th December 2025 in EP No.2324 of 2009.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the adverse order passed in execution proceedings.
Previous Decisions
The X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai had passed orders in EA No.2 of 2023 in EP No.2324 of 2009 and an order on 5th December 2025 in EP No.2324 of 2009 in O.S.No.2395 of 1966.
Issues
Whether the CMP and CRP should be entertained given the respondents' undertaking to vacate and the petitioner's withdrawal of claims.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. V. Ramamurthy, counsel for the petitioner, stated that respondents 3 and 4 filed affidavits undertaking to hand over vacant possession by 31.03.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner, residing abroad, withdrew all her claims and objections in the CMP.
Ratio Decidendi
When parties file undertakings to vacate the property and the petitioner withdraws all claims, the petitions become infructuous and are liable to be dismissed or rejected.
Judgment Excerpts
Mr.V.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the respondents 3 and 4 have filed separate affidavits stating that they would hand over vacant possession of the property on or before 31.03.2026.
In view of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed and the Civil Revision Petition is rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed CMP No. 618 of 2026 seeking leave to file CRP against an order in EA No.2 of 2023 in EP No.2324 of 2009. The CRP SR No. 1446 of 2026 was filed to set aside the order in EA No.2 of 2023 dated 07.10.2025 and the order dated 5th December 2025 in EP No.2324 of 2009. During hearing, respondents 3 and 4 filed affidavits undertaking to vacate, and the petitioner withdrew claims. The court dismissed the CMP and rejected the CRP at SR stage.
