CRP/5793/2025 of S. RAMACHANDRAN Vs CHINNAPONNU AMMAL on 12 October 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Ariyalur, in E.A.No.3 of 2023 in E.P.No.42 of 2019 in O.S.No.260 of 1987, dated 15.10.2024, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 1489 days in filing the

CRP.No.5793 of 2025

petition to set aside the exparte order passed against him on 19.08.2019 in E.P.No.42 of 2019.

2. The 1st respondent herein obtained a final decree for partition against the petitioner and she filed execution petition in E.P.No.42 of 2019 to take delivery of the properties allotted in the final decree proceedings. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was set exparte on 19.08.2019. Thereafter, he filed the instant application seeking to set aside the exparte order along with the petition to condone the delay of 1489 days. These petitions were filed by the petitioner on 25th September, 2023. The said petition was dismissed by the Executing Court on the ground that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 19.08.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the final decree proceedings as well as in the execution proceedings, notice has not been served on the petitioner and hence, the petitioner could not participate in the Court proceedings. It is further stated that the petitioner received notice in E.A.No.2 of 2021, only thereafter, he acquired knowledge about the execution proceedings and filed the present application with delay. The learned counsel by drawing the attention of this Court to Order 21 Rule 23(2) of the Civil

CRP.No.5793 of 2025

Procedure Code, would submit that objection raised by the respondent in the execution petition shall be considered by the Executing Court. In the case on hand, the petitioner has been denied the opportunity to raise objection.

4. As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the non-service of notice in the execution petition is concerned, the Executing Court after perusing the records found that notice in execution petition was served on the petitioner on 18.07.2019 and the same was affirmed by the Junior Bailiff on 19.07.2019. Therefore, it is clear that the notice was served on the petitioner and inspite of the same, he failed to appear in the execution proceedings. It is also seen in E.A.No.2 of 2021 again the petitioner was served with another notice on 21.01.2021. Even thereafter the petitioner has not appeared before the Court below and taken any steps to set aside the exparte order. The instant application has been filed only on 25th September, 2023, after service of second notice.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that after receipt of notice in E.A.No.2 of 2021, the petitioner engaged one Counsel-Venkatachalam and he passed away. Hence, he could not pursue the case. Though the petitioner was served with notice for the second time on 21.01.2021 in E.A.No.2 of 2021, the petitioner has not taken any steps to file application seeking to set aside the earlier exparte

CRP.No.5793 of 2025

order immediately and the same was filed only September, 2023. Even assuming the statement made by the petitioner that in the year 2021 itself, he engaged one counsel and he passed away subsequently is correct, the petitioner has not given any valid reason for his failure to contact his counsel from August-2019 to January 2021. Further, there is no explanation for a period from January 2021 to September 2023 also.

6. By drawing the attention of this Court to Order 22 Rule 23(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, it was stated that objection raised by the judgment debtor shall be considered in the execution petition. In the case on hand, the petitioner raised certain objections with regard to the manner of allotment of shares to the 1st respondent/decree holder. The petitioner remained exparte in the final decree proceedings also. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner of allotment of shares to the 1st respondent, the petitioner should have filed petition to set aside the exparte final decree or challenge it in the manner known to law by filing an application. Till date, the petitioner has not taken any steps to challenge the final decree and the same has attained finality.

7. In such circumstances, the points which were not raised in the final decree proceedings cannot be allowed to be raised in the execution proceedings by taking resort to Rule 23(2) of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code. The

CRP.No.5793 of 2025

failure to raise objection with regard to the manner of allotment will operate as constructive res judicate as against the petitioner.

8. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find anything to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

9. It is seen from the records, the original suit was of the year 1987 and the present execution petition was of the year 2019. Taking into consideration the execution petition has been pending disposal for nearly 7 years, this Court is inclined to direct the Executing Court to dispose of E.P.No.42 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible having the time line fixed by the Apex Court in Periyammal (Dead) Through Lrs and others vs. V.Rajamani and another reported in 2025 INSC 329, in it’s mind. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm To The Additional District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.

CRP.No.5793 of 2025

S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.5793 of 2025 and CMP.No.28775 of 2025 12-10-2026