CRP/3798/2026 of N.Bakthavachalam Vs N.Sarasu on 16 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

Heard Mr.M.L.Ravi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent in all the Civil Revision Petitions. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by the petitioner, as well as the counter filed by the respondent.

2. Mr.M.L.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the Execution Petitions in E.P. No.4, 5 and 6 of 2020, the petitioner suffered exparte orders dated 13.12.2023 (E.P. Nos.4 and 6 of 2020) and 04.01.2021 (E.P. No.5 of 2020). E.P. Nos.4 and 6, seeking condonation of delay of 374 days and E.P. 5 of 2020, seeking condonation of delay of 1447 days. The Executing Court dismissed all the Section 5 Applications, as against which, CRP. Nos.3798, 3802 and 3801 of 2026 have been filed.

3. The decree holder took out E.A. Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2022 in the respective Execution Petitions in E.P. Nos 4, 5 and 6 of 2020, invoking Order XXI, read with Section 94 and 151 CPC, seeking demolition of the building and disconnect the electricity service connection provided to the suit schedule property. The Execution Applications in E.A. Nos.152 and 153 of 2022, came

to be allowed on 04.03.2024 and in fact, it is brought to my notice that Mr.Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondents that possession has already been taken through Court on 02.04.2026. However, he fairly admits that insofar as E.A. No.151 of 2022, in E.P. No.4 of 2020, though E.A. No.151 of 2022 was allowed on 13.12.2023, Execution Petition is still pending and the respondent is yet to take possession of the suit property.

4. Mr.M.L.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit was filed by the respondents for partition of Survey Nos.216/3 in O.S. No.90 of 2009. As the said Survey Number did not pertain to the property of the petitioner, the petitioner did not contest the suit and thereby an exparte preliminary decree came to be passed on 22.07.2009. A final decree was also passed on 04.12.2013 and Execution Petition Nos.4, 5 and 6 of 2020 came to be filed by the decree holder on 24.10.2020, for taking possession of the property allotted to the decree holder in terms of the final decree passed on 04.12.2013. Mr.M.L.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner would however contend that pending the said Execution Petitions, the decree holder took out applications for amendment of the Survey No.216/3 to 216/30A in E.A. Nos.187, 188 and 189 of 2021.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the said Execution Applications seeking amendment of the survey number were allowed on 26.04.2021 and in the said applications, the petitioner was called and set exparte. Thereafter, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, belatedly, I.A. No.1 of 2022, was filed by the decree holders to amend the Survey Number in the suit in O.S. No.90 of 2009. Though the said application was strongly resisted by the petitioner, by filing a counter and the Trial Court also dismissed the application or amendment on 01.03.2023, the dismissal of I.A. No.1 of 2022 was challenged by the respondent/decree holders in CRP. Nos.2376 of 2023 and this Court allowed the revision petition on 10.07.2023.

6. Mr.M.L.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was never aggrieved insofar as the subject matter of the suit for partition was Survey No.216/3. However, in view of the mischievous attempt to amend it to the S.No.216/30A, the petitioner was seriously aggrieved and therefore, he even filed a suit in O.S. No.75 of 2024 for a permanent injunction to protect his possession in Survey No.213/30A. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the Executing Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to defend the applications for amendment and ought to have decided the amendment applications, after hearing the objections

of the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that in the meantime, E.A. Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2022, came to be allowed directing demolition as well as disconnection of electricity service connection and challenging the said orders, revision petitions have been filed with a delay of 374 days in two matters and delay of 1447 days in one matter. The learned counsel would state that the consequences of the orders impugned in these revision petitions are serious in nature and cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and therefore, in the interest of justice, he contends that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to contest the Execution Applications before the Executing Court and thereafter, on due enquiry, the Executing Court can dispose of all the Applications.

8. Per contra, Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder would submit that the petitioner was set exparte in E.P. Nos. 4 and 6 of 2020 on 13.12.2023 and E.P. No.5 of 2020 on 04.01.2021 and further the petitioner also filed an Application under Section 47 of CPC on 11.03.2002. Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder would further state that the said Section 47 Application was not even diligently

pursued and the said Applications in E.A. Nos.167, 168 and 169 of 2022 under Section 47 read with 151 CPC, came to be dismissed for default on 04.11.2022. According to Mr.Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner made an attempt by seeking to restore the dismissal of E.A. Nos.167, 168 and 169 of 2022, by filing Applications under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, on 13.12.2022.

9. Insofar as the Applications filed by the decree holders for demolition of the building and disconnection of electricity service, Mr.Prabakar, would contend that the petitioner was given reasonable and fair opportunity to file a counter and in fact, right from 14.09.2022 to 13.12.2023, the petitioner did not even choose to file a counter and only thereafter, the applications came to be allowed. He would also point out that in the amendment applications filed in I.A. No.1 of 2022, the petitioner had even filed his counter affidavit on 12.10.2022 and he had also entered appearance in CRP. No.2376 of 2023, which was filed by the respondents challenging the dismissal of their Order 6, Rule 17 amendment application.

10. Mr.R.Prabakar would further state that the petitioner even filed a fresh suit on 05.03.2024 in O.S. No.75 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, which factum has been admitted to even by Mr.M.L.Ravi,

learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite the same, the revisions challenging the orders in E.A. Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2022, dated 04.03.2024 and 13.12.2023, came to be filed only on 03.12.2024. Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent would therefore state that there is absolutely no cause, much less sufficient cause, shown by the petitioner warranting exercise of discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

11. Insofar as the other three revision petitions in CRP. Nos.3798, 3801 and 3802 of 2026, Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel contends that the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, were filed only on 20.01.2025, and here again, the delay of more than one year in two cases and more than four years in one case has not at all been explained, leave alone, satisfactorily explained. On the contrary, referring to the dates that have been brought to my notice and discussed hereinabove, Mr.R.Prabakar contends that it is not as if the petitioner was under any incapacity to not challenge the orders in time or file necessary applications in time, because he has been participating in other proceedings during the relevant period of time. He would therefore state that there is absolutely no reason for interfering with the orders dismissing the condone delay applications insofar as the three revision petitions are concerned and to condone the delay insofar as the other revision petitions in

CRP. Nos.5923, 5925 and 5926 of 2026.

12. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondents are brothers and sisters. The property in S.F.N0.216/30A, Thirunindravur Village, originally belonged to their father, Natesan Achari. The suit for partition in O.S. No.90 of 2009 was filed in respect of the suit property in S.F. No.216/30A. However, while instituting the suit, by inadvertence, the property has been described as S.F. No.216/3. Since the revision petitioner thought it unnecessary to contest the suit, since it did not relate to him, he remains exparte and allowed, not only an exparte preliminary decree but also exparte final decree application to be passed. It was at the stage of the final decree application that the plaintiff came to know about the mistake in the Survey Number and immediately an application was filed seeking amendment of the Survey Number. The said amendment application filed in the Execution Petitions came to be allowed by the Executing Court and thereafter, the respondent/decree holders realizing that without amending the decree in the suit, it was not proper or permissible to seek amendment of the Execution Petition alone, they took out I.A. No.1 of 2022.

The said application was contested by the petitioner and initially dismissed by the Trial Court. However, this Court set aside the said order dismissing the amendment application by allowing CRP. No.2376 of 2023, admittedly, the said amendment order passed in the revision has become final with the respondent not taking up the matter further by way of Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

14. Though there is some force in the submission of Mr.M.L.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the correct procedure should have been to have sought for amendment of the plaint first and thereafter, as a consequence, the judgment and decree and it could not have been vice versa, today with the order in CRP. No.2376 of 2023 dated 10.07.2023, having become final, I am unable to see how such a technical objection can be sustained at this juncture. Therefore, as on date, the survey number has been amended to the knowledge of the revision petitioner, and all his attempts to defy the decree have also been unsuccessful.

15. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders were passed exparte and an opportunity ought to be given to the petitioner to contest the applications, including the revisions that have been filed with delay,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others, reported in 2025 INSC 1104, has held that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court concerned, can only test the correctness of the reasons assigned by the petitioner, seeking condonation of delay and cannot go into the merits of the main case. In the said revision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the entire gamut of case law under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and ultimately, held that even if the petitioner who has approached the Court with delay, has a very good case on merits, even then, it is incumbent for such petitioner to first show and make out sufficient cause, before the Court becoming entitled to look into the merits and demerits of the main case and attempt to balance the equities.

16. In the present case, as already discussed herein above and as rightly putforth by the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.Prabakar, it is not as if the petitioner was not aware of the pending proceedings. He himself has challenged the decree by filing Section 47 Applications and has not pursued the same, which resulted in dismissal on 04.11.2022. The attempts to have the applications restore under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, have also been unsuccessful. The petitioner who was also given opportunity to file a counter in E.A. Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2022 and only thereafter, the Executing Court passed orders in

the said Execution Applications.

17. Taking note of the fact that, despite sufficient opportunities, the petitioner did not even file a counter, in fact, in respect of Schedule C and D, delivery was effected on 02.04.2024 and the same was recorded by the Court on 17.04.2024. That apart, the petitioner also contested I.A. No.1 of 2022, the amendment Application filed for amendment of Survey Number and in fact, even succeeded in having the said application dismissed. He even participated in the revision petition challenging the dismissal of the said Order 6 Rule 17 Application. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the delay of 374 days in two cases, 1447 days in one case, can be justified on the side of the petitioner. In fact, dates also clearly overlap and clearly, the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause and due diligence.

18. The mere fact that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest cannot be a ground to condone delay, when the petitioner has miserably failed to show sufficient cause. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the revision petitions. Similarly, even insofar as the applications filed in the other revisions in CRP. Nos.5923 & 5926 of 2026, insofar as two of the said matters, the delivery of possession has already been taken on 02.04.2026 and also recorded

by the Executing Court. Therefore, nothing survives for consideration in these two petitions, seeking condonation of delay. Even in respect of the CRP. No.5925 of 2026, despite the Executing Court allowing E.A. No.151 of 2022, as early as on 13.12.2023, the affidavit has been sworn to by the petitioner only on 20.01.2025 and in the interregnum period, as already discussed herein above, the petitioner has actively participated in various proceedings before the Court. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, the delay sought to be condoned can be justified or held to be satisfactory and sufficiently explained.

19. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in these Civil Revision Petitions. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.

16-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes RKP To The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP Pre-delivery Order in CRP. Nos.3798, 3801, 3802, 5923, 5925 & 5926 of 2026 and CMP. Nos.25629, 25615, 25630, 16465, 16469 & 16473 of 2026 16-10-2026