CRP/5280/2025 of C.P.CHENNEERAPPA Vs Subadramma on 11 August 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.M.Mohammed Afridi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The revision petitioner challenges an order passed in Execution Proceedings, pursuant to the decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- together with interest and costs. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners suffered a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-, together with interest and costs on 07.12.2023.

CRP No.5280 of 2025

3. Aggrieved by the findings of the Trial Court, the petitioner has already preferred the First Appeal, which is pending before the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri. However, since there is a delay in preferring the First Appeal, the appeal is yet to be taken on file and the matter is pending at the condonation of the delay stage. There is a delay of 569 days in preferring the First Appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore states that when the petitioner is having a fair chance of success in the First Appeal, the petitioner should be afford an opportunity to prosecute the appeal on merits and the delay should not be put against the petitioner and thereby the Executing Court proceeding against the petitioner's assets pursuant to the order of attachment passed.

4. Per contra, D.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent states that despite suffering a decree on merits, the petitioner never chose to challenge the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, directing refund of advance paid under the agreement of sale in respect of the immovable property. He would further state that only after filing of the Execution Petition and attachment was ordered by the Executing Court that the petitioner woke up and preferred the First Appeal along with the condone delay application. He would therefore states that there is no infirmity in the order of the Executing Court warranting interference, when admittedly the First Appeal is yet to be even numbered,

CRP No.5280 of 2025

leave alone, there being any interim stay granted by the Higher Court.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

6. At the time of admission, this Court directed deposit of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the credit of O.S. No.431 of 2021, on 29.10.2025. The said conditional order has been complied with and subsequently, the interim order has been repeatedly extended as well and continues to operate as on date. In the light of the above and also considering the fact that the First Appeal has been filed along with condone delay application, I am inclined to pass the following order:-

(i) The order of the Executing Court attaching the immovable property is confirmed. However, the said order of attachment shall be kept in abeyance for a period of eight (8) weeks.

(ii) The First Appellate Court viz., the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri, shall dispose of I.A. No.2 of 2025, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 569 days, within a period of six

(6) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

(ii) In the event of First Appellate Court, finding sufficient cause being shown by the petitioner, and allowing the Section 5 application, the appeal shall be numbered and any stay application that has been filed or to be filed, shall be

CRP No.5280 of 2025

taken up and disposed of within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter.

(iii) In the event of the First Appellate Court, finding no sufficient cause made out, then it shall be open to the respondent to proceed with the attachment order in his favour, which has been confirmed by this order as well.

(iv) In the event of delay being condoned, then the Execution Petition shall be kept in further abeyance till the disposal of the stay application in the First Appeal, which shall be decided in the event of there being a necessity arising out of the condone delay application being allowed within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter. It is needless state that in the event of the Section 5 Application being dismissed, the Executing Court shall proceed to effect attachment.

7. In fine, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed with the above directions. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. 11-08-2026 RKP Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No To

1. The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai.

CRP No.5280 of 2025

P.B.BALAJI, J., rkp CRP No.5280 of 2025 and CMP. No.26520 of 2025 11.08.2026