CRP/5622/2025 of TAMIL NADU TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD Vs L. Arumugam on 10 August 2026

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The respondents, despite service of notice, have neither chosen to appear in person nor through counsel.

3. The revision petitioner is the successful decree-holder in a suit on mortgage. The petitioner initially filed final decree proceedings before a wrong forum. The application was filed as early as on 23.12.2011, before the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. However, the said application was returned by the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, only on 05.11.2019.

4. From the copy of the affidavit of petition bearing the office seal, it is seen that despite the application having been filed in 2011, the Court had not acted upon it, and the application was returned only on 05.11.2019. In the

( Uploaded on: 17/08/2026 01:17:16 pm )

C.R.P.No.5622 of 2025 interregnum, the application was not even returned for any compliances.

5. In fact, the Learned District Munsif, Coimbatore, had granted one month time to the petitioner corporation to prefer the final decree application before the proper court. Within a few days thereafter, the application was re- presented before the competent court, namely the District Court, Coimbatore. However, the Learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, dismissed the said application on the ground of limitation.

6. The Learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, has held that the petitioner had not satisfied the mandate of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner filed no application seeking to exclude the delay period during which the petitioner prosecuted the final decree proceedings before the wrong forum, namely the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. It appears that, even in the absence of such an application, the Court, namely the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, non-suited the petitioner on the ground that Section 14(2) would not come to the aid of the petitioner.

7. Admittedly, when the Court before which the proceedings were wrongly initiated had not taken up the application up to 05.11.2019 and had

( Uploaded on: 17/08/2026 01:17:16 pm )

C.R.P.No.5622 of 2025 even granted a month’s time to file the petition before the proper Court, this aspect was not factored, while disposing of the final decree application on the ground that it was barred by the law of limitation.

8. Considering that the respondents are also not before this Court, I am inclined to set aside the order of the Learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

9. Accordingly, the petitioner shall file an application seeking to exclude the time lost in prosecuting the matter before the wrong forum. Upon the filing of such an application, the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, shall conduct a due enquiry. The petitioner is also given liberty to lead evidence, if so advised, and the application under Section 14 shall be decided within two months after affording a fair opportunity to the respondents.

10. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 10.08.2026 raja

( Uploaded on: 17/08/2026 01:17:16 pm )

C.R.P.No.5622 of 2025 Neutral Citation : Yes / No To The I Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

( Uploaded on: 17/08/2026 01:17:16 pm )

C.R.P.No.5622 of 2025 P.B.BALAJI

, J.

raja C.R.P.No.5622 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.28286 of 2025 10.08.2026

( Uploaded on: 17/08/2026 01:17:16 pm )