Madras High Court
CRP/7070/2026 of Mani Vs Meenachi on 11 November 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.Nos.7070 & 7071 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012273832026}
and
C.M.P.No.30402 of 2026
C.R.P.No.7070 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mani W/o.Varutharaj Udaiyar
2. Muthusamy S/o.Varutharaj Udaiyar
3. Maheswari W/o.Duraisamy
4. Selvam W/o.Settu @ Sundarrajan
5. Santhosam W/o.Shanmugam
6. Chandra W/o.Anbumani
7. Suseela W/o.Muthusamy
8. Sivakumar S/o.Maanikkam
9. Senthilkumar S/o.Maanikkam
10. Gunasekaran S/o.Ayyasamy
11. Sudhakar S/o.Gunasekaran
12. Sudha W/o.Jeyavel ..Petitioner(s) Vs M. Sellappan (Died) M. Muthusamy (Died)
1. Meenachi W/o.Late Chellappan
2. Vadivel S/o.Late Chellappan
3. Ravi S/o.Late Chellappan
4. Nallammal W/o.Late Muthusamy
5. Raji S/o.Late Muthusamy
6. Prabhu S/o.Late Muthusamy
7. Kasthuri @ Rajeswari W/o.Prakkash ..Respondent(s) C.R.P.No.7071 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA012273842026}
1. Mani W/o.Varutharaj Udaiyar
2. Muthusamy S/o.Varutharaj Udaiyar
3. Maheswari W/o.Duraisamy
4. Selvam W/o.Settu @ Sundarrajan
5. Santhosam W/o.Shanmugam
6. Chandra W/o.Anbumani
7. Suseela W/o.Muthusamy
8. Sivakumar S/o.Maanikkam
9. Senthilkumar S/o.Maanikkam
10. Gunasekaran S/o.Ayyasamy
11. Sudhakar S/o.Gunasekaran
12. Sudha W/o.Jeyavel Vs M. Sellappan (Died) M. Muthusamy (Died)
1. Meenachi W/o.Late Chellappan
2. Vadivel S/o.Late Chellappan
3. Ravi S/o.Late Chellappan
4. Nallammal W/o.Late Muthusamy
5. Raji S/o.Late Muthusamy
6. Prabhu S/o.Late Muthusamy
7. Kasthuri @ Rajeswari W/o.Prakkash ..Respondent(s) Common Prayer : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 19.08.2026 in R.E.A.Nos.13 and 14 of 2026 in R.E.P.No.95 of 2020 in O.S.No.154 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif Court at Sendamangalam. For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy (in both C.R.Ps) C O M M O N O R D E R These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the common order passed by the Executing Court, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the ex-parte order passed against them in the Execution Petition and to condone the delay of 41 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order.
2. The respondents/decree holders obtained a decree against the petitioners/judgment debtors for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction in O.S.No.154 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram. The said decree was put into execution in R.E.P.No.95 of 2013. In the said Execution Petition, the petitioners entered appearance and thereafter failed to file their counter. Hence, an ex-parte order was passed against them on 08.12.2025. The petitioners filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order, along with an application to condone the delay of 41 days in filing the set aside petition. Both applications were dismissed by the Execution Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come forward with these Civil Revision Petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, at the relevant point of time, 8th petitioner herein, who was conducting the case on behalf of the other petitioners, was suffering from jaundice and hence, he could not appear before the Executing Court and file the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that the petitioners came to know about the ex-parte order passed against them only on 16.02.2026, when the Court Amin visited the suit property for the purpose of executing the decree. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the application to set aside the ex-parte order was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the petitioners and therefore, there was no delay in filing the said application. The application seeking to condone the delay was filed by way of abundant caution.
4. It is not the case of the petitioners that notice was not served on them in the execution petition. It is the admitted case that the petitioners received notice in the execution petition and entered appearance through counsel. The petitioners can claim the benefit of computing the period of limitation from the date of knowledge only in cases where notice has not been served in the execution petition,. In all other cases, the application to set aside the ex-parte order has to be filed within 30 days from the date of ex-parte order.
5. In the case on hand, the petitioners failed to file their counter and an ex-parte order was passed in the execution proceedings on 08.12.2025. The petitioners filed the application to set aside the said order beyond the period of 30 days prescribed under Order XXI Rule 106(3) C.P.C. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay, is not maintainable in view of the specific provision contained in Order XXI Rule 106(3) C.P.C.
6. When the application seeking to condone the delay itself is not maintainable, the Executing Court had no other option but to dismiss the application. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Execution Court.
7. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ms To The District Munsif Court, Sendamangalam.
S.SOUNTHAR J. ms C.R.P.Nos.7070 & 7071 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.30402 of 2026 11-11-2026