CRP/6756/2026 of K. Manikandan Vs K.Meenachi on 26 October 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 562 days in representing the retuned papers.

2. It is seen from the typed set of papers respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 17.06.2013. The suit was filed on 05.02.2015. The petitioners filed their written statement on 05.06.2015 and thereafter, remained ex-parte. Hence, ex-parte decree was passed against the petitioners for the first time on 30.03.2016. On the strength of ex-parte decree,

CRP No. 6756 of 2026

the respondent filed an Execution Petition for execution of sale deed in E.P.No.1 of 2018. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree along with a petition to condone the delay of 673 days in I.A.No.332 of 2018. The said application was allowed, and the ex-parte decree was set aside. In view of the setting aside of the ex-parte decree, the Execution Petition filed by the respondent in E.P.No.1 of 2018 was dismissed. Thereafter, the suit was posted for cross-examination of the respondent / plaintiff on 03.07.2019. Again the petitioners remained ex-parte, and hence, ex-parte decree was passed against them for the second time on 04.12.2019. Immediately, petitioners filed an application to set aside the ex-parte on 07.12.2019 in I.A.No.2 of 2020. However, the petitioners failed to prosecute the said I.A. proceedings, and due to their absence, I.A.No.2 of 2020 was dismissed for default on 16.06.2022. Thereafter, the respondent filed a second Execution Petition seeking execution of sale deed based on the second ex-parte decree in E.P.No.37 of 2023. The said Execution Petition was allowed and the sale deed was also executed in favour of the respondent. In the meantime, the petitioners filed an application to restore I.A.No.2 of 2020 which was dismissed for default. The said application was filed on 17.06.2022. However, the same was returned by the Court on 24.03.2023 and the return was taken by petitioner’s counsel on 29.03.2023. However, the same has not been re-presented. Hence, the petitioners filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 to condone the delay of 562 days in representing petition to restore I.A.No.2 of 2020.

CRP No. 6756 of 2026

3. It is seen from the typed set of papers, the petitioners entered appearance in Execution Petition No.37 of 2023 filed by the respondent and filed counter in Execution Petition as early as 05.09.2023. Even though petitioners filed counter for second Execution Petition during September 2023, they have not taken any steps to represent the restoration petition immediately. The same has been done only in the year 2025 along with an application to condone the delay of 562 days in re-presenting the returned papers.

4. The above narrated conduct of the petitioners clearly establishes their disinterest in contesting the case on merits. The main aim of the petitioners appear to be to drag on the matter and harass the respondent. The trial Court rightly appreciated the same, refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioners, and dismissed the application. I do not find any serious error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No EP To:- The Subordinate Court, Pollachi.

CRP No. 6756 of 2026

S.SOUNTHAR, J. EP CRP No. 6756 of 2026 C.M.P.No.29095 of 2026 26-10-2026