Madras High Court
Rajaguru vs N.Rajalakshmi on 22 June, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.1427 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P(MD)No.1427 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.7124 of 2023
Rajaguru ...Petitioner/Petitioner/6th Respondent/Nil
Vs.
V.Ramachandran (Died)
1.N.Rajalakshmi
2.N.Venkadeswaran
3.N.Vijaya
4.V.R.Rajakumari
5.V.R.Asokan
6.V.R.Meera
7.V.R.Venkadakrishnan
8.V.R.Parameswaran
... Respondents 1 – 8/Respondents 1 -10/Petitioners/Plaintiffs
9.R.Gomathi
10.A.Andaal
11.S.Nagarathinam
... Respondents 9 – 11/Respondents 11 -13/Respondents 2– 4/
Defendants 2 - 4
12.Thamarai Selvi
13.Divya
... Respondents 12,13/Respondents 14 -15/Respondents 5 and 7
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside fair and decreetal order dated
12.04.2023 made in E.A.No.7 of 2023 in E.P.No.59 of 2020 in O.S.No.
82 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sattur.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Mahalakshmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P(MD)No.1427 of 2023
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set
aside the order passed in E.A.No.7 of 2023 in E.P.No.59 of 2020 in
O.S.No.82 of 2010 dated 12.04.2023, on the file of the Subordinate
Court, Sattur.
2.The petitioner is the daughter of the deceased first defendant in
O.S.No.82 of 2010 filed by the plaintiffs, who are now interested and
represent in the capacity as the legal heirs of their father, the deceased
first defendant in O.S.No.82 of 2010. The suit was contested by the
petitioner's father Nagaraj. The suit was decreed on 14.09.2015. The
petitioner's father however did not file any appeal against the judgment
and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.8 of 2010 dated 14.09.2015.
3.Under these circumstances, the respondent had originally filed
E.P.No.140 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Sivakasi. E.P.No.140 of 2016
was later transferred to the Sub Court, Sattur and was re-numbered as
E.P.No.59 of 2020. During the pendency of the execution proceedings,
the petitioner's father also died on 24.11.2017.
4.It appears that the petitioner was also impleaded in the execution
proceedings along with her mother and sister as legal representative of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1427 of 2023
their father. However, being impleaded in E.P.No.59 of 2020, the
petitioners and her mother and sister, after failed to participate in the E.P.
Proceedings. Therefore, they were set exparte on 07.10.2020. Therefore,
the petitioner filed application to condone the delay in setting aside the
exparte order passed in E.P.No.59 of 2020. The only ground that taken
by the petitioner to condone the delay is that the execution Court failed
to provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner who presented the
arguments and evidence.
5.It is further submitted that the petitioner were impleaded only on
10.02.2021 after the learned counsel appeared for the petitioner's father,
filed memo for continuance of appearance for the proposed parties on
01.02.2021.
6.It is further contended that the petitioner resides in
Tirumangalam, Madurai District and was unaware of the order regarding
the petition for a legal representative of her father. She was also not
aware of the Memo of Appearance filed on behalf of her. It was only on
26.01.2023, when the Court Ameena visited the suit property, that the
petitioner, who was residing with her parent's neighbors, become aware
of the exparte order. Subsequently, on 01.02.2023, the petitioner filed a
petition to condone the delay of 450 days under Section 5 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1427 of 2023
Limitation Act, 1963, to set aside the exparte order in E.P.No.59 of 2020.
However, the trial Court dismissed the said petition.
7.There is 450 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte
order passed in the execution petition. The petitioner's father having not
filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2015, will not
give a right to the petitioner to delay the execution of the decree that has
been passed in favour of the respondents. Further Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to proceedings under Order XXI
of CPC. Even if the delay is condoned, there is no case for interfering the
order passed by the execution Court.
8.Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed
and it is accordingly, dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Mrn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1427 of 2023
To
1.The Sub Judge, Sattur.
2.The Section Officer
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1427 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN,J.
Mrn
C.R.P(MD)No.1427 of 2023
22.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
