Madras High Court
CRP/4334/2025 of SUBRAMANIAM Vs N.VIJAYAKUMARI on 18 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-08-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 4334 of 2025
and CMP No.22254 of 2025
1. Subramaniam
S/o. Ramasamy, Thottathusalai,
Pappankulam Village, Madathukulam
Taluk, Tiruppur Dist.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. N.Vijayakumari
W/o. Natchimuthu, D.No. 19, Jothi Nagar, Venkatesa Mill Post, Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur Dist.
2.N.Rukmani
W/o. Balasubramanian Periyavalavadi,
Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur Dist.
3.T.Mahalingam
S/o. Thirumoorthi, D.No. 4-46,
Periyavalavadi, Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur Dist.
Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the Docket Order passed in E.A.No.65 of 2025 in E.P.No.13 of 2024 in O.S.No.366 of 2021 on the file of Sub Court, Udumalpet dated 24.03.2025.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan
For Respondent(s):
N.Thiagarajan
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 the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in E.A.No.65 of 2025. It was an application seeking to set aside the exparte order in EP No.13 of 2024. In fact, the said application was entertained by the executing Court, however, on cost of Rs.3,500/-(Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred Only). The petitioner did not avail of the indulgence shown by the executing Court by payment of cost in time.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would however bring to my notice that only because of the advanced age and health issues, the cost could not be paid in time and that an application for extension of time to pay the said cost has also been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder would state that the petitioner is in the habit of protracting the proceedings and this is yet another attempt made on behalf of the petitioner, by willfully abstaining from complying with the order of the executing Court and thereafter by challenging the consequential order dismissing E.A.No.65 of 2025.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
6. Admittedly, the executing Court exercised discretion in allowing E.A.No.65/2025 by imposing cost of Rs.3,500/- on the revision petitioner and the said amount has not been paid within the stipulated time. Consequently, E.A.No.65 of 2025 has been dismissed per se there can be no infirmity or perversity found in the said order of the executing court since it has resulted only out of the inaction and non payment of the cost ordered by the executing Court. However, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances and also considering that an application for extension of time has also been taken out, bonafide, in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the execution petition on merits, I am inclined to allow the revision, however, subject to the following conditions:- The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed in E.A.No.65 of 2025 is set aside, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) (including the cost of Rs.3,500/-, as ordered by the executing Court) to the learned counsel for the respondents in this revision, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
P.B.BALAJI.,J sr No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed Post the revision “For Reporting Compliance”on 07.09.2026. 24.08.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To The Sub Court, Udumalpet