CRP/4427/2026 of J.Navin Vs Jancy on 14 August 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.G.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.Manimaran, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner/husband suffered an order directing return of articles in EA.No.4 of 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that an application was filed to set aside the ex-parte order, without noticing that there is a delay of three days and without filing an application seeking to condone the delay of three days. The learned counsel therefore states that no doubt there has been a delay of three days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order in E.A.No.4 of 2025. However, the court also, without noticing the same, proceeded to number the settings aside application, and in such circumstances, the act of Court should not be put against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel further stated that the Court could have at least called upon the petitioner to file an application to cure the defect, which also was not done, and instead the Court has proceeded to dismiss the setting aside application on this limited ground alone. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that as against the order directing return of articles passed by the Family Court in the original proceedings, a CMA.No.2377 of 2024 has been

( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 07:07:07 pm )

CRP No. 4427 of 2026

preferred before the Division Bench of this court and it is in the stage of condonation of delay. The petitioner has also filed his counter in EP.No.7 of 2024.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that having suffered an order of return of articles and there being no stay, admittedly, as against the said order, there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court, dismissing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The learned counsel further submitted that it is only an attempt to protract the proceedings and he would therefore prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.

6. The petitioner/husband suffered an order for return of articles in I.A.No.5 of 2022, pending the divorce proceedings. The said order is now under challenge before this Court, however, the appeal is yet to be numbered since there has been a delay in preferring the appeal. Therefore, there is no stay of the order for return of articles in I.A.No.5 of 2022 as on date.

7. Now, coming to the Execution Petition, despite appearance, the petitioner did not file counter and because of non filing of counter in the main E.P, he was set ex-parte. An application was taken out to set aside the ex-parte

( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 07:07:07 pm )

CRP No. 4427 of 2026

order in E.P. by filing EA.No.4 of 2025. The petitioner did not notice the fact that the application was not filed in time and there was a delay of three days, which should have been condoned prior to taking up the application to set aside the ex-parte order. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court also fell in error in numbering the application to set aside the ex-parte order as E.A.No.4 of 2025. If the application was not filed in time, the Court ought to have returned the same and directed an appropriate condone delay application to be filed. Unfortunately, this has not been done and the delay of three days has gone unnoticed even at the end of the Court.

8. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the inadvertent error committed by the Court should not prejudice the petitioner. Moreover, the delay is only three days and cannot be termed as deliberate, wilful, or inordinate. I am therefore inclined to allow the revision on the following terms:-

1. The order in EA.No.4 of 2025 is allowed. The ex-parte order in E.P.No.7 of 2024 is consequently recalled and set aside.

2. The Executing Court shall proceed with the enquiry in E.P.No.7 of 2024, without any delay, unless and until the petitioner is able to produce any interim stay of protection from the Division Bench of this Court in the CMA.No. filed by him. In the absence of any interim order, the Execution Petition shall be disposed of within a period of three months.

( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 07:07:07 pm )

CRP No. 4427 of 2026

9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed, if any. 14-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DPQ To The Family Court, Chengalpet.

( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 07:07:07 pm )

CRP No. 4427 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI, J. DPQ CRP No. 4427 of 2026 14-08-2026

( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 07:07:07 pm )