Madras High Court
CRP/6113/2025 of N.PREMKUMAR Vs MARGADARASI CHITS PVT LTD on 16 October 2026
CRP.No.6113 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.6113 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA012937602025}
and
CMP.No. 30071 of 2025
N.Premkumar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Margadarasi Chits Pvt Ltd
Rep. by Foreman,
A-WIng, Flat No. 1 and 2, 2nd Floor,
Parsn Manere, No.602, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 006.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the return dated 26.11.2025 in E.A.Sr.No.78357 of 2024 in E.P.No.322 of 2021 and direct the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner
: Mr.B.Gopinath
For Respondent
: Mr.D.Shivakumaran
CRP.No.6113 of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of return passed by the Executing Court returning the application filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the exparte order passed against him dated 20.09.2021 in the main execution petition as not maintainable.
2. The respondent herein obtained an arbitration award against the petitioner under the Chit Funds Act. Since the arbitration award amount has not been paid by the petitioner and other judgment debtors, the respondent herein filed execution petition in E.P.No.322 of 2021. In the said execution petition, notice was not served on the petitioner, who was arrayed as 3rd respondent/3rd judgment debtor. Therefore, the paper publication was ordered and the same was effected. Inspite of the same, the petitioner failed to appear before the Executing Court and hence, he was set exparte on 20.09.2021.
3. Now, the instant application has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the exparte order passed against him. The instant application has been filed on 6th November-2025. The same has been returned on the ground that it was not filed within a period of limitation under Order 21 Rule 106 of Code of
CRP.No.6113 of 2025
Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
4. This Court while interpreting the scope of Order 21 Rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Sundarammal and another vs. Kanagaraj and another reported in 2025 (3) MWN (Civil) 52, observed as follows:- “52. .. … … … v. An order under Order XXI Rule 105(3) CPC is an order passed ex parte where the opposite party does not appear. Where the opposite party does not appear, the Court may set him ex parte and thereafter, proceed to hear the application and pass orders. Order XXI Rule 105(3) C.P.C., also says “the Court may hear the application ex parte and pass such order as it thinks fit.” The limitation prescribed under Order XXI Rule 106(3) C.P.C., is to set aside an order passed in consequence of the opposite party being set ex parte. Thus, if the Opposite Party is set ex parte and if he appears before the disposal of the petition and requests to have the order setting him ex parte set aside, such an application will not fall within Order XXI Rule 106(3) CPC, since an order setting the opposite party ex parte is not an order under Order XXI Rule 106(3) CPC. It is only when an order is passed in the petition in consequence of the opposite party being set ex parte, the provisions of Order XXI Rule 105(3) & 106(3) stand attracted. … … … …”
CRP.No.6113 of 2025
5. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been set exparte. However, the main execution petition is pending, no final exparte order has been passed against him allowing the execution petition. In such circumstances, in the light of the law settled by this Court in the above mentioned judgment, the petitioner is entitled to maintain this application before the Executing Court. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Executing Court returning the application filed by the petitioner in E.A.Sr.No.78357 of 2024 questioning the maintainability is set aside. The Registry is directed to return the original papers in E.A.Sr.No.78357 of 2024 to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after obtaining necessary endorsement.
6. The petitioner is directed to represent the returned papers before the Executing Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such representation, the Executing Court is directed to number the same, if it is otherwise in order and dispose of the application in E.A.Sr.No.78357 of 2024, in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of numbering. In case, the exparte order passed against the petitioner is set aside and he is permitted to participate in the executing proceedings, the Executing Court shall dispose of the main Execution Petition, as expeditiously as possible having the time line fixed by the Apex Court in the
CRP.No.6113 of 2025
case of Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs and others vs. V.Rajamani and another reported in 2025 INSC 329, in its mind.
7. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm To The X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
CRP.No.6113 of 2025
S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.6113 of 2025 and CMP.No.30071 of 2025 16-10-2026