CRP/6375/2026 of M.Muthumeenachi Vs Betsy Balan on 5 October 2026

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the executing court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 r/w 151 of CPC seeking declaration that the exparte decree obtained by the respondent in O.S.No.645 of 1992 was vitiated by fraud and hence, in executable.

2. The following facts are not disputed:- The predecessor in interest of respondents namely D.S.J. Hariharan filed a suit for specific performance against the husband of the first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3. The said suit was decreed exparte on 10.03.1994. Thereafter, the original defendant namely Nagarajan filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with a petition to condone the delay of 484 days in IA.No.1998 of 1995. The said application was allowed on condition that the petitioner therein should make a payment of Rs.1000/- on or before 15.11.1999. The said condition was not complied. Hence, the condone delay petition was dismissed on 16.11.1999. Thereafter, the original defendant filed an application seeking restoration of the IA which was dismissed along with the petition to condone the delay of 839 days in IA.No.788 of 2002. The said IA was dismissed on 03.07.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the original defendant filed a revision before this Court in CRP.No. 959 of 2009 and the said CRP was dismissed. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the exparte decree, a sale deed was executed in favour of the original plaintiff on 24.01.2001. Thereafter, he filed delivery EP to take possession in EP.No.105 of 2002 on the file of Sub Court, Poonamallee. The said EP was filed on 05.02.2002. Later, the same was transferred to Sub Court, Tambaram and renumbered as EP.No.105 of 2009. Subsequently, again the execution petition was transferred to Sub Court, Alandur and renumbered as EP.No.279 of 2021. At this juncture, the petitioners, who are claiming right under the original defendant Nagarajan, filed instant application seeking declaration that exparte decree passed against their predecessor in interest namely Nagarajan was obtained by fraud and hence, the same was inexecutable. The said application was dismissed by the executing court even without numbering. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have come before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the predecessor in interest of petitioners namely Nagarajan was suffering from mental illness called Cyclothymic disorder. The original plaintiff namely Hariharan, taking advantage of the mental illness of the original defendant, obtained a sale agreement from him and initiated legal proceedings to get the sale deed executed through Court. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the entire legal proceedings against the Nagarajan was vitiated by fraud committed by the original plaintiff, who had taken advantage of the mental illness of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. It was also submitted that the petitioners were not aware of the sale agreement, the decree passed against Nagarajan and other legal proceedings. They acquired knowledge about execution of the proceedings and the exparte decree only recently. Immediately, the present application has been filed seeking above mentioned relief.

4. The learned counsel also submitted that when the exparte decree passed against the predecessor in interest of the petitioners is questioned on the ground of mental illness, the Executing Court ought have numbered the said application and considered it on merits.

5. It is seen from the order passed by this court in CRP.No. 959 of 2009, the petitioners’ predecessor in interest Nagarajan himself raised a plea of mental illness and the same was negatived by this court. When the plea of mental illness was raised by petitioner's predecessor in interest Nagarajan himself in CRP.No. 959 of 2009 and the same was negatived, the petitioners, who are claiming right under him as his legal representatives are not entitled to raise the very same point. It is seen from the typed set of papers that after passing the ex parte decree against Nagarajan, he filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree along with the petition to condone the delay in I.A. 1998 of 1995 and the same was allowed on payment of cost. Since the above said Nagarajan failed to comply with the condition, the same was dismissed. Again, he made another attempt by filing application to restore the above mentioned I.A along with the petition to condone the delay of 839 days. The said application was filed in I.A. No.788 of 2002 and the same was dismissed on 03.07.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the said Nagarajan filed CRP.No. 959 of 2009 before this Court and the same was also dismissed.

6. A perusal of the order passed in CRP.No. 959 of 2009, this Court found that Nagarajan himself raised a plea of mental illness and the same was negatived. Therefore, the above mentioned Nagarajan initiated various proceedings to set aside the exparte decree and failed in his attempt up to High Court. In such circumstances, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as if said Nagarajan was suffering from mental illness cannot be accepted, especially when the said point was raised unsuccessfully by Nagarajan himself in the above mentioned CRP.No. 959 of 2009.

7. It is also seen from the impugned order that in the present execution application, the petitioners were impleaded by order dated 12.03.2025 in EA.No.1 of 2023. In the said EA, the petitioners were served as early as 09.09.2024 and the petitioners entered appearance on 28.10.2024 itself. However, the petitioners have not filed any application immediately questioning the validity of the decree. They waited for nearly two years and then, filed the present application on 13.08.2026. The Executing Court, pointing out the long delay on the part of the petitioners in questioning the decree, rightly observed that the present application filed by the petitioners speaks volumes about the intention of the petitioners.

8. The exparte decree was passed against the above mentioned Nagarajan as early as 10-03-1994. In earlier EP filed by the decree holders, the sale deed was executed in favour of decree holders on 24.01.2001. The present EP was filed on 05.02.2002. Even after the lapse of nearly 23 years, the decree holders were unable to avail the fruits of the decree. In Periyammal Vs Rajamani reported in (2025 INSC 329), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that execution applications shall be disposed of expeditiously within a period of six months. In the case on hand, even after the lapse of 23 years, the petitioners filed the instant application raising the very same plea which was raised unsuccessfully by their predecessor in interest namely Nagarajan before this court in CRP.No. 959 of 2009. Pointing out the same, the executing court rightly dismissed the application. I do not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NR To The Sub Court, Alandur.

S.SOUNTHAR, J. NR CRP No. 6375 of 2026 and CMP.No.27452 of 2026 05-10-2026