CRP/2861/2025 of K.KARTHIKEYAN Vs VETRISELVI on 2 September 2026

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 14.11.2024 in R.E.A.No.5 of 2024 in R.E.P.No.33 of 2018 in O.S.No.145 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Paramathi.

2. I have heard Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgment debtor and Mrs.S.Aiyshwarya, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that an application filed before the Executing Court, invoking Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC has been dismissed, on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the said provision. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the facts of the present case are peculiar in nature. The petitioner was a minor, when the judgment and decree was passed by the Trial Court and within 90 days from the date of attaining majority, he has challenged the decree passed by the Trial Court, by preferring an appeal. Therefore, the appeal was well in time. However, the cause title in the judgment and decree did not reflect the correct position which necessitated the petitioner to go back to the Trial Court seeking necessary amendments to the judgment and decree, especially in the cause title. There has been a delay on the part of the Trial Court in issuing the amended copies. In the interregnum period, the respondent has proceeded to execute the decree in his favour. Therefore, the petitioner took out an application, seeking interim protection, by invoking Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC.

4. Admittedly, in stricto sensu the Executing Court may not have committed any error in dismissing the application since Order XXI Rule 26 of

CPC is available, only in order to enable the proposed appellants to get certified copies and prefer an appeal. Admittedly, in the present case, an appeal has been filed. However, only after filing of the appeal, certain errors and discrepancies have been noticed in the cause title, which necessitated the petitioner to go back to the Trial Court, seeking necessary amendment to the cause title. I therefore do not find that the delay was on the part of the petitioner and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, even though the appeal had been filed and the petitioner could not invoke Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC in the normal circumstances, considering the fact that there was an error in the judgment and decree, it cannot be construed as being a proper presentation of the appeal.

5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice that the amended copies of the judgment and decree have been issued by the Registry of the Trial Court and they have been represented along with an application for condonation of delay of 2750 days. Admittedly, though the delay appears to be inordinate, it is only on account of the delay in issuing the amended certified copies of the judgment and decree.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would state that the petitioner is protracting the proceedings and the decree was passed way back in the year 2014 and till date, the respondent-decree holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree. She would however fairly brings to my notice that the delay is alleged to be on account of necessary corrections to the judgment and decree and fresh certified copies being issued, which as on date, admittedly have been represented along with the appeal papers, within three days, after receipt of the same from the Trial Court. I do not see any deliberate omission, inaction or negligence on the side of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent also fairly stated that the execution proceedings may be kept in abeyance for a reasonable period for enabling the petitioner to get the delay condoned and also get stay in the appeal.

7. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, in the manner following:

(i) The dismissal of Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC application in R.E.A.No.5 of 2024 is confirmed. However, the Executing Court shall keep the further proceedings in the execution petition in abeyance, subject to the following directions:

(a) The First Appellate Court, namely the District Court, Namakkal, shall hear the application for condonation of delay of 2750 days in representing the appeal and dispose of the said application, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(b) In the event of the said application being dismissed, then it shall be open to the petitioner to press for execution and satisfaction of the decree. However, in the event of the delay being condoned, then the petitioner shall have a period of two weeks from the date of the appeal being numbered to obtain an interim stay of the execution proceedings. It is needless to state that if the petitioner is not successful in getting such interim stay, then also the respondent shall be entitled to proceed with the execution petition. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 02.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The Subordinate Court, Paramathi.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.2861 of 2025 02.09.2026