CRP/1104/2026 of Shriram Finanace Ltd. Vs C.S.Udayakumar on 19 August 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Docket Order dated 05.12.2025 in EA SR No.6593/2025 in EP No.189/2020 in A.C.P.T.F. No.288/2019 on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Tiruppur. returning the application seeking to withdraw the full satisfaction memo dated 17.11.2025.

2. Heard Mr.A.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has been served, however, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. In respect of R1 and R2, though service is not completed, in view of the fact that R1 and R2, represented by counsel, who has also made no objection endorsement before the executing court, Additional District Judge, Tiruppur, while taking notice in the application filed by the petitioner in E.A.Sr No.6593 of 2025, this court is inclined to take up the civil revision petition for final hearing.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the full satisfaction memo dated 17.11.2025 and states that, even though the due amount has not been settled by the respondents, purely by inadvertence and

CRP No. 1104 of 2026 error, full satisfaction memo was filed on 17.11.2025. However, he would state that realising the mistake, immediately, without any further loss of time, on the next working day itself, the petitioner filed E.A.Sr No.6593 of 2025, requesting the court to give permission to withdraw the full satisfaction memo. The said application has been returned by the executing court on 05.12.2025, posing a query, as to how such a petition can be maintained, when the execution petition has already been terminated.

4. I had an occasion to deal with the similar matter, where, an application filed, seeking permission to withdraw the suit to be recalled, at the instance of the very same party. In A.Senthil Murugan Vs. Nirmal Kumar and others in CRP Nos.4258 and 4259 of 2026, dated 07.08.2026, I referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jey Plywood (P) Limited and another Vs. Madhukar Nowlakha and others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 699 and Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs. Prakash Chandra Mishra and others, reported in (2011) 2 CTC 463, I held that it is permissible for a court to invoke inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC and permit recalling of an order of withdrawal of the suit itself. In the light of the above, the order of return made by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tirupur is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

CRP No. 1104 of 2026

5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. in the following manner:-

(i) Considering that the respondents have not chosen to appear before this court and though the learned counsel for the respondents made no objection endorsement in E.A.Sr No.6593 of 2025, endorsing that he appeared for the counsel on record for the respondents, namely Advocate Saravanan, without specifying which of the respondents he is appeared, I am inclined to remit the matter to the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur.

(ii) The learned I Additional Judge, Tiruppur shall number the application in E.A.Sr No.6593 of 2025 and thereafter, dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

(iii) Registry shall return the original application filed by the petitioner, within one week from the date of copy of order being uploaded in the website to enable the petitioner to represent the same before the Executing Court. There shall be no order as to costs. 19-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur.

CRP No. 1104 of 2026 P.B.BALAJI, J. MST CRP No. 1104 of 2026 19-08-2026