Madras High Court
CRP/4518/2026 of J.Sujatha Vs P.Mangalchand Ostwal on 10 September 2026
CRP No. 4518 of 2026
CRP No. 4518 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-09-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 4518 of 2026
and CMP No.19827 of 2026
J.Sujatha
W/o. R.Jayachandran, NO.2 Town Hall 3rd
Street, Suvalpettai, Arakkonam- 631001.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
P.Mangalchand Ostwal
S/o. Late Prakash Jain, No.1, Sylvan Lodge Colony, 2nd Cross Street, Kilpauk, Chennai
- 600 010.
Respondent(s)
Revision filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decretal order dated 23.06.2026 in E.A.No.1 of 2026 om E.P.No.4 of 2026 in O.S.No.98
of 2024 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Arakkonam.
For Petitioner(s):
K.Mohanamurali
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Parthipan
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 challenges the order of dismissal of an application filed
CRP No. 4518 of 2026 under Order XXI Rule 26 of Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner moved the said application pending execution petition in a decree sought to be executed against the petitioner.
2. The suit was filed by the respondent for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Admittedly, the petitioner remained exparte in the suit, which resulted in an exparte decree, being passed against him. However, the petitioner has moved two applications – one for condonation of delay and another for setting aside the exparte decree in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2026.
3. Citing the pendency of these applications, the petitioner moved for interim stay of the execution of the decree invoking under Order XXI Rule 26 of Civil Procedure Code. The executing Court finding that there is nothing to evidence the filing of the application, dismissed the said application for stay of the execution.
4. Today, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice that the E-court proceedings which reflect the fact that I.A.No.3 of 2026 has already been allowed and the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree has been condoned. He would further state that the setting aside application is listed for
CRP No. 4518 of 2026 hearing tomorrow (10.09.2026) and the respondent/decree holder is yet to file counter in the said application.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder states that the setting aside application may be taken up and disposed of at the earliest, so that the respondent/decree holder, subject to the decision of the setting aside application, would be at liberty to proceed with the execution petition, in a manner known to law.
6. In the light of the fair concession shown by the respondent/decree holder, the civil revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam at Ranipet, to dispose of I.A.No.4 of 2026 after affording an opportunity to the respondent/decree holder to file a counter and in any event, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Subject to the result of I.A.No.4 of 2026, in the event of the decree being set aside, nothing would survive in the execution petition and therefore, there would be no difficulty for the revision petitioner. However, in the event of setting aside application being dismissed, the respondent is at liberty to proceed with the execution petition.
CRP No. 4518 of 2026 P.B.BALAJI.,J sr No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09.09.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To The II Additional District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam at Ranipet CRP No. 4518 of 2026