Madras High Court
CRP/3991/2026 of A. PAUL VINCENT Vs B.JAYAKUMAR on 25 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP. No.3991 of 2026
and CMP. No.17451 of 2026
A.Paul Vincent
..Petitioner
Vs
B.Jayakumar
..Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC, to set aside the order dated 07.04.2026 passed in E.A. No.9 of 2025, in E.P. No.130 of 2022 in O.S. No.604 of 2013 by the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner(s):
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.S.Swaminathan
Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan
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
Heard Mr.S.S.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner challenges an order of dismissal of an Application filed under Order XXI, Rule 106 CPC. Mr.S.S.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioner contested the suit, he suffered a decree for recovery of money, pursuant to which, Execution Petition was instituted. The case of the petitioner is that he was not aware of the Execution Petition until he received notice of sale papers and immediately, he has filed an Application under Order XXI, Rule 106 CPC to set aside the order E.P. No.130 of 2022, by order dated 30.07.2024. Mr.S.S.Swaminathan, learned counsel further states that the Application was filed within 30 days, therefore it was taken up on file as E.A. No.9 of 2025, without the Registry raising any objection, with regard to delay in filing the said application. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore seeks for a fair opportunity to contest the Execution Proceedings on merits.
3. Per contra, Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder states that even before this Court, the revision petitioner, though claims that he has challenged the decree passed by the Trial Court by way of a statutory First Appeal, no particulars have been given and in this regard, he takes me through the affidavit filed in support of the stay application, where the revision petition himself states that he is in dark about any appeal having been filed, challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. He would therefore state that the present attempt is also only to protract the proceedings to deny the fruits of the decree being enjoyed by the respondent/decree holder. He would therefore pray for the dismissal of the revision petition.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 106 CPC, to set aside the exparte order in the Execution Proceedings in EP. No.130 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore. The petitioner has stated that he could not appear on the assigned date because of health issues and also in view of the local Advocates boycotting the Courts. The petitioner has been non suited only on the ground that no medical evidence has been filed. Admittedly, when there is no delay, the Court should have adopted a more lenient approach in affording an opportunity to the petitioner, especially when the petitioner contends that the decree of the Trial Court has already been appealed against. No doubt, even till date, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to give the particulars of the pending First Appeal, if any. However, at the same time, since the respondent has been diligent to atleast take out the application within 30 days from the date of being set exparte in the Execution Petition, I am inclined to give one opportunity to the petitioner to contest the decree on merits. However, the prejudice caused to the respondent has to be suitably compensated/safeguarded.
6. In the light of the above, while setting aside the order of the Executing Court and allowing the Application under Order XXI, Rule 106 CPC, the
P.B.BALAJI, J. petitioner is put on terms viz., the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the credit of E.P. No.130 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and on such deposit, the exparte order in E.P. No.130 of 2022, shall be set aside and the Executing Court shall dispose of the Execution Petition, unless and until, the petitioner produces an order of interim stay from the First Appellate Court and not otherwise and the Execution Proceedings shall be disposed of by 22.12.2026, and subject to the respondent succeeding, he shall be permitted to withdraw the amount being deposited in pursuance of this order.
7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.
25.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The II Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore. CRP. No.3991 of 2026 and CMP. No.17451 of 2026