Madras High Court
CRP/351/2026 of Parameshwaran alias Mani Vs Saravanan on 15 October 2026
CRP No. 351 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 351 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010167922026}
Parameshwaran @ Mani
S/o K.P Palaniappa Gounder,
126,Pachiamman Koil Street,
Royal Layout,
Karungalpalayam,
Erode.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Saravanan
S/o Selvaraj,
D No 153,
Periamarriamman Koil Street,
Karungalpalayam,
Erode.
2. N.Senthilkumar
S/o.Naryanasamy
25, West Perumal Koil Street,
Fort Erode Town.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to allow the above CRP by setting aside the fair and decreetal order dt.
17.10.2025, in EA 242/2014 in EP No.142/2008, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode For Petitioner(s):
For R1:
Mr. T.S.Baskar
for Mr.S.Sivakumar
No appearance
For R2:
Mr.C.Ramaraj
CRP No. 351 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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 present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.03.2009, passed by the executing court, whereby the petitioner was set ex-parte in the execution proceedings.
2. It is not in dispute after setting the petitioner ex-parte, the execution proceedings went on and the property of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor was sold in auction sale. At this belated stage the petitioner is not entitled to seek setting aside of the order setting him ex-parte, without challenging the final order passed in Execution Petition ordering sale of property. In fact, the petitioner filed an application to set aside sale and the same was adjudicated and dismissed as per Order XXI Rule 92 of CPC. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a separate revision petition, registered as CRP No. 350 of 2026, and the same has been dismissed by granting liberty to challenge the order by filing an appeal before the regular First Appellate Court. Any order passed in the Appeal to be filed by the petitioner will cover the issues raised in this revision is also and therefore, no further orders are necessary in this revision, and the same is dismissed as no further orders are necessary. The petitioner is entitled to urge all points raised in the Revision in the appeal to be filed against the order passed under Order XXI, Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
CRP No. 351 of 2026
3. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner enjoyed the benefit of an interim stay during the pendency of this revision. Since the petitioner was directed to work out their remedy before the Appellate Court, it is directed that, no further proceedings shall be taken in the Execution Petition until the expiry of the time granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the First Appellate Court. No costs. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rya To:- I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode
CRP No. 351 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J. rya CRP No. 351 of 2026 15-10-2026