CRP/4543/2026 of R. Sowmya Vs Anand Chemical on 23 September 2026

ORDER

The 4th Judgement Debtor in EP. No.151 of 2025 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppur, is the revision petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Arun, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.Myilsamy, learned counsel for the first respondent.

3. The revision petition is directed against the order dated 09.06.2026, returning the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Order 21, Rule 106 CPC, on the ground that the petition is not maintainable, in the light of the ROC No.81478-A/2025/F1, dated 11.09.2025.

4. Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would firstly state that the Executing Court ought not to have returned the Application as not maintainable and barred by limitation, without affording a fair opportunity to the petitioner by posting the matter in open Court. In any event, when it is the case of the petitioner that the Application has been filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the exparte order, then it is very well maintainable under Order 21 Rule 106 (3) CPC. He would further state that relevant ROC that has been relied on by the Executing Court to non-suit the petitioner is also misplaced and ill-conceived, since the application filed under Order 21, Rule 106 CPC was not to set aside an order passed under Order 21, Rule 105 CPC, for which alone, this Court had issued the ROC to the effect that an Application for condonation of delay cannot be filed and that the Application will have to be necessarily filed within 30 days.

5. Per contra, Mr.K.Myilsamy, learned counsel for the respondent would state that the petitioner was set exparte and it is not a case where the petitioner was not served with summons, but despite summons being sent to the 2nd respondent Company's address, the petitioner did not choose to enter appearance. In this regard, he would invite my attention to the memorandum of grounds of Civil Revision Petition and contends that the petitioner has admitted to the factum of receipt of summons at the Company address of the second respondent. He would therefore state that the Executing Court has not committed any error in returning the Application under Order 21, Rule 106 CPC as not maintainable.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

7. Firstly, with regard to non service of notice, though Mr.K.Myilsamy, learned counsel for the first respondent has taken me through the memorandum of grounds of Civil Revision Petition and attempted to interpret the case of the petitioner that he was served with summons at the second respondent's Company address, on perusal of the memorandum of grounds of revision, I find that the petitioner nowhere admits that he was served with summons. His case is summons was attempted to be served on the petitioner at the Company address of the second respondent, instead of serving the petitioner at his residential address. Therefore, on this ground, I am unable to see any merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the first respondent Mr.K.Myilsamy.

8. Coming to the return of the Application, this Court has issued ROC No.81478-A/2025/F1, dated 11.09.2025, in pursuance of the order of this Court in CRP. Nos.808 and 809 of 2025 dated 26.06.2025. This Court in fact, in the said revision, directed the Rules Committee to bring about necessary amendments and till then, this Court held that the Executing Court does not have the power to condone delay in Execution proceedings especially under Order 21, Rule 106(3) CPC, if the application is filed after the statutory period of 30 days. However at the same time, this Court clearly protected any prejudice or injustice being caused to the genuine litigants till such time, a final decision taken by the Rules Committee of the High Court on the Administrative side. In fact, exceptions were carved out by this Court in the said revision petition and the same were also duly carried forward in the ROC as well.

9. In the present case, firstly, the dismissal was not under Order 21, Rule 105 (2) CPC, on the contrary, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he had no notice of the proceedings and his application has been filed within a period of 30 days from the date of knowledge. In such circumstances, the Executing Court ought to have numbered the Application and decided the Application, after hearing the objections of the respondent/decree holder.

10. In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside the order of return dated 09.06.2026. The Registry shall return the original E.A.SR. No.5057 of 2026, to the learned counsel for the petitioner, to enable the same to be re- presented before the Executing Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the original from the Registry of this Court and on such re- presentation the Executing Court shall number the Application and shall give fair opportunity to the respondent/decree holder to file a counter and shall decide the application on merits and in accordance with law.

11. It is needless to state that it shall be open to the first respondent to canvass his objections that the case of the petitioner clearly falls only within Order 21, Rule 105(2) CPC and the Application for condonation of delay is not maintainable. The Executing Court shall decide the application on merits

P.B.BALAJI.J., without being prejudiced by any observation that may have been made in this order which are limited only for the purpose of deciding the revision and not on the merits of the Application filed under Order 21 Rule 106 (3) CPC.

12. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur.

and CMP. No.19969 of 2026