CRP/4894/2026 of Mansoor Ali Vs Ameerunnisa Begum Sahiba Endowments on 2 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

Heard Mr.R.Manickaval, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.L.Gavaskar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. CRP No.2809 of 2016 is filed by the wife of the judgment debtor and CRP No.4894 of 2026 is filed at the instance of the defendant.

3. CRP No.2809 of 2026 challenges an order passed dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/wife of the defendant under Order XXI Rule 97 of

Civil Procedure Code. 4, CRP No.4894 of 2016 has been filed by the defendant, aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.8482 of 2015 by order dated 29.07.2015 dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 1998 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree dated 29.07.2015.

5. Mr.R.Manickavel, learned counsel for the petitioners would firstly contend that the revision petitioner in CRP No.4894 of 2026 alone is the judgment debtor in the execution proceedings. However, the petitioner in CRP No.2809 of 2026, who is the wife of the petitioner in CRP No.4894 of 2026, has independent right, title and interest to one half of the suit property. This Court, in fact, granted liberty to the petitioner/wife to lead evidence and establish her contentions in the application filed Order XXI Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code. He would further state that for the reasons beyond the control, the said application filed under Order XXI Rule 92 of Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed for non-prosecution and a fair opportunity may be given to the wife of the defendant/judgment debtor to establish her independent interest in the suit property.

6. Insofar as the revision filed by the defendant as against the order dismissing the condone delay application, Mr.R.Manickavel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant contends that though the delay appears to be inordinate, the petitioner has been able to show sufficient cause and in fact, the counsel who had appeared for the petitioner/defendant and also similarly placed occupants died during covid period and therefore, the petitioner came to know about the exparte decree only after the bailiff visited the spot during the execution proceedings. He would further state that on merits the petitioner has a very good case since the land belongs to Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and the respondent/plaintiff has not been able to substantiate his right, title on interest over the same. He also invites my attention to Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,1971 which mandates prior permission of the Board, before instituting any proceedings in respect of the properties belonging to the Board. Learned counsel would therefore state that the petitioner has strong and substantial defence and technical objections on the ground of delay should not be put against the petitioner and in order to do substantial justice, the delay ought to be condoned.

7. Per contra,Mr.L.Gavaskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder, in sofar as the delay application is concerned, would state that the petitioner had entered appearance through counsel and has also filed written statement even in the year 2005, admitting the tenancy and however, claiming that the superstructure alone was put up by the defendant. However, he would state that the petitioner has not diligently followed the matter and the reasons assigned in the application filed in support of the condone delay application were unsubstantiated and not proved before the trial court and rightly the trial court has dismissed the condone delay application.

8. Insofar as the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code, it is his contention that despite this Court granting an opportunity to the petitioner/wife to put forth her contentions in the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code , this Court had specifically directed the executing Court to dispose of the execution petition within four months, as early as in November 2025. However, the execution proceedings have not been disposed of till date. He would also invite my attention to the impugned order where the executing Court has recorded the fact that the revision petitioner has not even appeared in the application filed under Order XX1 Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code and has not produced the original documents.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

10. Insofar as the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed by the defendant, the petitioner in CRP No.4894 of 2026, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was served with summons and he has entered appearance through a counsel. He has also filed a written statement and thereafter, he has abandoned the proceedings without diligently following the matter.

11. It is not acceptable on the part of the petitioner to contend that he was not aware of the exparte decree and that he came to know about the same only after receiving the notice in the execution proceedings. The trial Court has rightly considered the cause shown by the petitioner to be not sufficient and in my considered opinion, by a well considered order, dismissed the condone delay application.

12. Independently, I have also gone through the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application and I do not find any sufficient cause being made out for exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in favour of the petitioner/defendant.

13. Insofar as the arguments of Mr.R. Manickavel, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the petitioner has substantially good defence in the suit, in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivamma vs Karnataka Housing Board reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1969, the trial court, while adjudicating the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is not obligated to go into the merits of the claim and the scope of enquiry is limited to whether the applicant seeking condonation of delay has shown sufficient cause or not. Therefore, I am unable to aaccept the arguments of Mr.R.Manickavel, on the merits of the suit claim and take it as a relevant factor, for being liberal in condoning the delay of 1998 days.

14. In fine, I do not find any merit in CRP No.4894 of 2026 and the same is dismissed.

15. Coming to CRP No.2809 of 2026, filed by the wife, admittedly, E.A.No.2687 of 2010 has been filed for causing obstruction to delivery in the execution petition. This Court, by order dated 25.10.2025 in CRP No.4233 of 2025 directed Order XII Rule 97 application to be decided on merits, within a period of four months, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit and also additional documents. As rightly pointed out by by the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Gavaskar, it is not as if the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity.

The executing court has recorded the fact that despite sufficient opportunity given, the petitioner has not come forward to produce the original documents and has attempted to rely on photostat copies alone. However, today, Mr.R.Manickavel, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in possession of all necessary original documents and the petitioner is willing to cooperate for expeditious disposal of the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code.

16. Considering that the Order XXI Rule 97 application has not been decided on merits, but has been dismissed for non-prosecution only, and substantial rights of a third party may be the wife of the petitioner,but, however, she not being a party defendant or party to the execution proceedings, I am inclined to grant one final opportunity to the petitioner/wife, to agitate her rights in Order XXI Rule 97 application.

17. In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 07.04.2026 passed in EA No.2943 of 2016 in EP No.2687 of 2010 in O.S.No.3840 of 2005 on the file of IX Assistant City Civil Court is set aside and CRP No.2809 of 2026 is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall lead evidence oral and documentary within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

(ii) Cross examination of the petitioner shall be completed within a period of one week thereafter.

(iii) The executing Court shall pass final orders in the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code within a period of six weeks thereafter.

(iv) The execution petition in EP No.2687 of 2010 shall be disposed of within a period of four weeks from the date of disposal of the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code, without seeking any further extension of time.

(v) The petitioner shall cooperate with the executing Court for enabling the executing Court to comply with the time lines specified herein above.

P.B.BALAJI.,J sr

18. CRP No.4894 of 2026 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 02.09.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To

1. The I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai

2. The IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai