Madras High Court
CRP/5648/2026 of The Superintendent Engineer Vs Ambica Gen Power on 23 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 5648 of 2026
and CMP. No.24412 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012089732026}
The Superintendent Engineer
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
CEDC, Central 110 KV
Valluvarkottam SS Complex,
Chennai-600 034
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Ambica Gen Power
Rep by its Proprietor Pramod Kumar Daga
No. 5, Bakers Street
1st Floor, Chennai 001
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the CPC, to set aside the Order dated 14.08.2026 made in E.A.,SR. No.53890 of 2026 in E.P.No.387 of 2026 in O.S.No. 5364 Of 2007, pending on the file of the XXVI
Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.A.Abdul Hameed,
Additional Advocate General for
MrS. J.Hemalatha Gajapathy
For Respondent(s):
Mr.N.Nagu Shah
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 revision petitioner is the Superintendent Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, CEDC- Central 110KV, Chennai - 34. The present revision petition has been filed challenging dismissal of E.A. SR. No.53890 of 2026, in E.P. No.387 of 2026.
2. I have heard Mr.A.Abdul Hameed, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Nagushah, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General, Mr.Abdul Hameed, would state that the Review has already been filed seeking to review the judgement and decree in S.A. No.951 of 2013 dated, 28.11.2024 and the petitioner is diligently taking steps to list the review application and obtain interim orders. He would therefore state that in the interregnum period since the respondent is proceeding with the Execution Petition, the petitioner was forced to file an Application under Order 21, Rule 26 CPC, seeking to stay the Execution Petition. He would therefore state that some interim protection may be given to the petitioner, as otherwise the review application itself would become infructuous.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder, Mr.Nagushah, would state that the Executing Court has rightly dismissed the
Application, holding that after having failed to get any interim orders from this Court in Review Application, there is no ground available for seeking stay under Order 21, Rule 26 CPC. The learned counsel would further state that the present attempt is only to further protract the proceedings and delay the Execution Petition indefinitely. He prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and I have also gone through the impugned order in E.A. SR. No.53890 of 2026.
6. As rightly contended by Mr.Nagushah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder, the Executing Court has in my considered opinion correctly non suited the petitioner on the ground that the only avenue open to the petitioner is to seek interim relief in the Review application and not before the Executing Court, especially after admittedly having filed a review application in the Second Appeal. Therefore, I do not see any grounds to interfere with the well considered order of Executing Court. However, at the same time, the learned Additional Advocate General, contended that the petitioner is making necessary mention to list the review application at the earliest, I am inclined to grant time till 09.10.2026, to enable the petitioner to
P.B.BALAJI, J. obtain any interim orders in the review application. In such circumstances, the Executing Court shall keep the Execution Petition in abeyance till 09.10.2026 and in the event of the petitioner not being successful in getting any interim orders in the review application, it shall be open to the respondent to proceed to execute the decree in E.P. No.387 of 2026 on the file of the XXVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
7. In the light of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Judge, XXVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
and CMP. No.24412 of 2026