CRP/2858/2026 of S.Ravi Vs Sudhir Ramachand on 10 September 2026

ORDER

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the original E.A.SR.No.9013 of 2026 may be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner to enable the petitioner to represent the same before the Executing Court.

2. Registry is directed to return the original E.A.SR.No.9013 of 2026 to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by end of 11.09.2026. This order shall read with, in conjunction with the order dated 09.07.2026. 10.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 04:00:27 pm )

CRP No. 2858 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No. 2858 of 2026 10.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 04:00:27 pm )

CRP No. 2858 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No. 2858 of 2026 & CMP.No.11658 of 2026 S.Ravi ..Petitioner(s) Vs

23. Sudhir Ramchand

24. M.Ganesan,

25. G.Anbazhagan

26. K.Sankaralingam

27. K.Ramesh

28. Irusappan @ Rajagopal

29. R.Meganathan

30. R.Jayalingam

31. M.Gopal

32. G.Devakumar

33. G.Sigamani

34. G.Maickavel

35. Singaravel

36. G.Pandiaraj

37. Jeeva

38. Kasthuri

39. G.Selvam

40. L.Bulla @ Munusamy

41. C.Durai

42. D.Prabhakar

43. D.Apple @ Vajravelu

44. Mallika [RR1 to 22 rep. by their Power Agent G.Durairaj]

23. G.Durairaj ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the docket order dated 11-02-2026 passed in EA.SR. No. 9013 of 2026 in EA.No. 2

( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 04:00:27 pm )

CRP No. 2858 of 2026

of 2019 in EP.No. 1270 of 2013 in OS No.7222 of 2010, passed by the learned X Asstant City Civil Court, Chennai and consequently, restore the petition and dispose of the same on merits and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.N.Nataraaj For Respondent(s): M/s.C.D.Sugumar for R1 R23 - Died RR2 To 22 - Rep. by their Power Agent (R23 - G. Durairaj)

ORDER

Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the docket order dated 11-02-2026 passed in EA.SR.No.9013 of 2026 in EA.No.2 of 2019 in EP.No.1270 of 2013 in OS.No.7222 of 2010 passed by the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and consequently, restore the petition and dispose of the same on merits.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of an application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, even at the SR stage.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is a third party to the proceedings and his property has been erroneously attached in the execution

( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 04:00:27 pm )

CRP No. 2858 of 2026

proceedings, without any notice to him. He would also rely on the decision of this Court in Selvaraj and others Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited, through its Project Director, Koodankulam, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, reported in 2021 (4) CTC 539, where this Court has set out guidelines for Trial Courts to follow in matters like these, viz., dealing with applications at the numbering stage.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder would state that the application to condone the delay is not maintainable under Order XXI of CPC and he has also relied on the decision of this Court in R.Rasappan Vs. D.Rajalakshmi, reported in 2025 SCC Online Mad 4068. He would therefore state that there was no error committed by the Executing Court in dismissing the application as not maintainable.

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

7. Firstly, I find that the application under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC has been rightly invoked by the petitioner as a third party to the EP, as well as the suit proceedings. I do not find there being any necessity to have even invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the instant case. The petitioner, on coming to know of the order of attachment of his property, would have been entitled to straight away invoke Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC and seek for raising of the

( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 04:00:27 pm )

CRP No. 2858 of 2026

order of attachment. However, the petitioner has chosen to take out an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

8. The claim of the petitioner that the property, which is attached is belonging to him has to be tested on merits and the Executing Court ought not to have dismissed the same at the SR stage, which is also against dictum of this Court in Selvaraj’s case, referred herein above.

9. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the docket order dated 11-02-2026 passed in EA.SR.No.9013 of 2026 in EA.No.2 of 2019 in EP.No.1270 of 2013 in OS.No.7222 of 2010 passed by the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, is set aside. The petition shall be numbered and disposed of, after giving an opportunity to the 1st respondent to contest the same, by filing counter and the enquiry shall be completed and orders passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 09-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA

( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 04:00:27 pm )

CRP No. 2858 of 2026

To The X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 04:00:27 pm )

CRP No. 2858 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No. 2858 of 2026 09-07-2026

( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 04:00:27 pm )