Madras High Court
CRP/3391/2026 of A.Paul Vincent Vs R. Balakrishnan on 8 October 2026
CRP.No.3391 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.3391 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011330702026}
and
CMP.No.14752 of 2026
A.Paul Vincent
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. R.Balakrishnan
2. R.Shanthini
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to revise and set aside the order dated 22.04.2026 passed in
I.A.No.2 of 2024 in A.S.C.F.R.No.14245 of 2024 by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner
: Dr.S.S.Swaminathan
For R1
: Mr.N.Krishna Kumar
for Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For R2
: No Such Person
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:51 pm )
CRP.No.3391 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 Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in A.S.C.F.R.No.14245 of 2024, dated 22.04.2026 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 2524 days in filing first appeal.
2. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit seeking specific performance against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein. The said suit was partly decreed by granting the alternative relief of return of advance amount. Since the petitioner failed to pay the amount as per the decree, the 1st respondent/decree holder filed execution petition seeking recovery of the amount. The said execution petition is still pending. Now, challenging the decree passed in the main suit dated 13.06.2017, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Court on 11.06.2024 with a petition to condone the delay of 2524 days. The said condone delay petition has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that immediately after judgment and decree passed in the original suit, the petitioner instructed his Counsel-Mr.N.Manivannan to take necessary steps to file an
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:51 pm )
CRP.No.3391 of 2026
appeal and paid necessary fees. However, he failed to file the appeal. Later, the said Mr.N.Manivannan represented the papers with another Advocate- Mr.S.Nirmalraj. The said Mr.S.Nirmalraj represented the petitioner in the execution proceedings. After sometime, the petitioner engaged a new counsel and through him came to know that the earlier counsel failed to file appeal and hence, there is a delay 2524 days in filing the appeal. It is also submitted that the reason assigned by the petitioner in the affidavit has not been properly appreciated by the First Appellate Court and the impugned has been passed.
4. It is seen from the typed-set of papers, the suit was partly decreed against the petitioner by directing him to pay the advance amount with interest. The decree was passed on 13.06.2017. The 1st respondent filed execution petition in the year 2018 and the petitioner entered appearance in the execution petition as early as 2019. Ex.R2 is the application filed by the petitioner in E.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking to set aside the exparte order passed in execution petition. Ex.R4 is yet another application filed by the petitioner in E.A.No.2 of 2023 seeking to postpone the sale to enable the petitioner to raise the amount and to settle the same to the 1st respondent.
5. The First Appellate Court taking into consideration the exhibits marked before the Court, has given a finding that the petitioner actively participated in
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:51 pm )
CRP.No.3391 of 2026
the execution proceedings from the year 2019 to 2024. After several years, the petitioner filed the first appeal with a petition to condone the delay of 2524 days. The inordinate delay of 2524 cannot be condoned merely based on the vague allegation of the petitioner by putting blame on the earlier counsel.
6. When the petitioner entered appearance in the execution petition, he should have taken steps to file appeal challenging the original decree. Instead of challenging the same, he filed several applications in execution proceedings, so as to stall the execution proceedings. Taking into consideration all these facts, the First Appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to explain the delay properly and dismissed the application. I do not find any error in the said order.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:51 pm )
CRP.No.3391 of 2026
To The Principal District Court, Coimbatore.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:51 pm )
CRP.No.3391 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.3391 of 2026 and CMP.No.14752 of 2026 08-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:51 pm )