CRP(MD)/2620/2026 of Panchavarnam Vs M. Marnattan on 23 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner against the order dated 23.06.2026 passed in EA.No.2 of 2026 in EP.No.2 of 2025 in OS.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the District Musif Court, Sivagangai.

2. The revision petitioners filed E.A.No.2 of 2026 under Order XXI Rule 106 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 20.08.2025 passed against them in the execution proceedings

3. The revision petitioners are defendants 3 to 5 in the suit, and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent instituted O.S.No.10 of 2017 seeking the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession. The first revision petitioner is the wife of late Kandasamy, who was arrayed as the second defendant in the suit. The second and third revision petitioners are the daughter and father of late Kandasamy, respectively. The property in question was purchased by Kandasamy from Thilagam, who was arrayed as the first defendant in the suit.

4. During the pendency of the suit, Kandasamy died, and the revision petitioners, being his legal representatives, were impleaded as defendants 3 to 5. Kandasamy had purchased the property from Thilagam, who, in turn, had purchased the same from Perumal. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the defendants had deliberately altered the boundaries of the property at the time of its purchase, necessitating the institution of the suit.

5. Despite the objections raised by the revision petitioners, the suit came to be decreed. Aggrieved by the decree, the revision petitioners preferred A.S.No.23 of 2024 and also filed an application seeking stay of the execution proceedings. It is stated that the appellate Court proceeded to hear the arguments on behalf of the appellants in the main appeal without first passing orders on the interim stay application and posted the appeal to 03.10.2026 for arguments on behalf of the respondent.

6. In the meantime, the respondent initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.2 of 2025 seeking delivery of possession. As the revision petitioners did not appear in the execution proceedings, they were set ex parte by order dated 20.08.2025. Seeking to set aside the said ex parte order, they filed E.A.No.2 of 2026. However, the executing Court dismissed the application on the ground that it had not been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners had not been duly served with notice in the execution proceedings and came to know of the same only recently. Immediately upon gaining knowledge of the execution proceedings, they approached the executing Court seeking to set aside the ex parte order. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the executing Court had erred in dismissing the application on the ground of limitation and that the impugned order warrants interference by this Court.

8. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the application filed by the revision petitioners was founded on the ground that notice in the execution petition had not been served on them, thereby preventing them from appearing before the executing Court. However, upon verification of the records, the executing Court found that notice in the execution proceedings had already been served on the revision petitioners.

9. It is further seen that the ex parte order was passed on 20.08.2025. Under Order XXI Rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an application to set aside an order passed ex parte in execution proceedings is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order or, where the applicant was not duly served with notice, from the date on which the applicant had knowledge of the order, as applicable under the provision.

10. In the present case, the revision petitioners have not specifically pleaded that they acquired knowledge of the ex parte order only recently and that the application was filed within 30 days from the date of such knowledge. The executing Court, upon considering the available records and finding that notice had been served on the revision petitioners, concluded that the application had not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation and accordingly dismissed the same.

11. In the absence of sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the executing Court had committed any error warranting interference, this Court finds no merit in the Civil Revision Petition.

12. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that A.S.No.23 of 2024 is pending before the appellate Court and has reached the stage of final arguments. It was further submitted that the application filed by the revision petitioners seeking stay of the execution proceedings has not yet been disposed of.

13. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the revision petitioners have already filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in A.S.No.23 of 2024, and the said application is still pending consideration. The appeal itself is also pending before the appellate Court.

14. In such circumstances, if the execution proceedings are allowed to proceed to the stage of delivery of possession before the pending stay application is considered, the revision petitioners may suffer prejudice, and the purpose of pursuing the appeal may be seriously affected. Therefore, it is appropriate that the pending stay application is considered and disposed of expeditiously, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties and in accordance with law.

15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the Subordinate Court concerned is directed to take up I.A.No.1 of 2024 in A.S.No.23 of 2024, hear both parties, and dispose of the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

23.09.2026 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM To

1. The Subordinate Court, Sivagangai.

2. The District Musif Court, Sivagangai.

R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.2620 of 2026 23.09.2026