CRP/4710/2026 of V.Shivakumar Vs V.Srinkanth Krishnan on 17 August 2026

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 17.06.2026 in E.A.No.1 of 2026 in E.P.No.1256 of 2026 in O.S.No.3049 of 2025 on the file of the learned XXVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. I have heard Mr.G.V.Sridharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Thangasivan, for Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in the execution proceedings, having suffered a decree in O.S.No.3049 of 2025 on the file of the learned XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the petitioner is the actual owner of the property, who subsequently sold it to the respondent and by making false allegations, the suit for recovery of possession has been filed against him and in the suit, the petitioner was not served with any summons and an exparte decree came to be passed. The decree, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is therefore a nullity and has to be necessarily set aside and the same is permissible under Section 47 of CPC. He would also bring to my notice that an application has been filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC and the same is coming up for enquiry before the Trial Court on 28.08.2026. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would therefore pray that the execution proceedings shall be deferred, till the decision is arrived at in the setting aside application.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder states that the revision is an abuse of process and the application filed before the

Executing Court, invoking Section 47 of CPC, was not even maintainable in the first place. He would also point out to the detailed counter that was filed by the respondent-decree holder before the Executing Court in E.A.No.1 of 2026, namely the Section 47 application. The learned counsel for the respondent would also invite my attention to the fact that petitioner not only appeared in the suit, but also participated in the proceedings and even after filing the written statement, a conditional order directing payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- was not complied with and only on that ground, the petitioner was set ex-parte and thereafter, the suit came to be decreed. He would also, on instructions, state that the setting aside application has already been dismissed. He would therefore pray for the revision being dismissed.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on eithr side.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has already filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree. His only grievance in the Section 47 application is that he has not been served with any notice or summons in the suit in the original instance. However, the Executing Court, from the records, has found that the petitioner has participated in the proceedings before the original side and rightly come to the conclusion that the Section 47 application is not maintainable. I do not see any perversity in the findings arrived at by the Trial Court, warranting interference in this revision. It is always open to the petitioner to make out a case that there has been no proper service of summons in the setting aside application, admittedly filed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner can invoke Section 47 of the CPC.

7. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner pursuing his Order IX Rule 13 of CPC application, if it is still pending. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 17.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The XXVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.4710 of 2026 17.08.2026