CRP/5774/2026 of Nandhini Manivannan Vs V. Ravichandran on 2 November 2026

1. Nandhini Manivannan

2. M. Sivaraman ..petitioners(s) Vs Parvathi (Deceased) V. Sakthivel (Deceased)

1. V. Ravichandran

2. V. Sivakumar

3. A. Sasikala

4. S. Sujitha

5. S. Sushmi ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 5790 of 2026

1. Nandhini Manivannan

2. M.Sivaraman ..Appellant(s) Vs Parvathi (Deceased) V. Sakthivel (Deceased)

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

1. V.Ravichandran

2. V.Sivakumar

3. A.Sasikala

4. S.Sujitha

5. S.Suhmi, ..Respondent(s) Prayer in CRP.No.5774 of 2026: This Civil Revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to direct the learned Judge to number the Unnumbered REA Stay Application in REA No.3 of 2026 in REP No.24 of 2025 in IA No.256 of 2006 in OS No.184 of 2022 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mettur and to set aside the return dated 14.08.2026. Prayer in CRP.No.5790 of 2026:This Civil Revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to direct the learned Judge to number the unnumbered R.E.A. Stay Application in REA.No.2 of 2026 in REP No.24 of 2025 in I.A.No.256 of 2006 in O.S.No.184 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mettur and to set aside the return dated 14.08.2026. For Petitioners in both CRPs : M/s.C.S.Vedavalli For Respondent in both CRPs : Mr.D.Lakshmipathy for M/s.T.Gopinathan For R1 to R5

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

C O M M O N O R D E R These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order of return passed by the Executing Court returning an application filed by the petitioners seeking stay of execution.

2. The predecessor in interest of the respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit seeking partition against the petitioners and other respondents. The trial Court passed preliminary decree for partition granting 1/4th share to the plaintiff, the predecessor in interest of the respondents 1 and 2. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application for passing of final decree and the trial Court was pleased to pass final decree in the suit. The said final decree was put into execution in R.E.P.No.24 of 2025.

3. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the petitioners filed the second appeal before this Court in S.A.No.303 of 2019 and they also filed stay applications. However, the second appeal was dismissed for default. Subsequently, applications have been filed to condone the delay for nearly 4 years, seeking restoration of the second appeal.

4. In the meantime, the respondents 1 and 2 filed Execution Petition seeking to take delivery of the property allotted to them. Therefore, the petitioners filed

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

an instant application seeking stay of execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC and the same has been dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, the petitioners have come before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second appeal filed by the petitioners have been dismissed for default and the petitioners have taken steps to restore the same. In the meantime, if the respondents are allowed to execute the decree, the same will cause irreparable hardship to the petitioners. Therefore, the execution proceedings initiated by the respondents shall be stayed.

6. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the stay petitions and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners filed a second appeal before this Court in the year 2019 itself and the same was dismissed for default and there is a delay for nearly 4 years in seeking restoration of the second appeal. Since the second appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed for default and there was no attempt to restore the same immediately, the respondents/decree holder filed an application seeking execution of the decree. Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC is enabling provision permitting the Executing Court to stay the execution proceedings so as to enable the aggrieved party to move the Appellate Court and to get the order of stay in appeal.

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

7. In the case on hand, the petitioners moved the Appellate Court and got the second appeal numbered and the same was dismissed for default.

8. In such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC, the Executing Court rightly return the application filed by the petitioners as not maintainable.

9. I do not find any error in the impugned order, accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ub

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

S.SOUNTHAR J. ub CRP.Nos.5774 and 5790 of 2026 02-11-2026

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )