Madras High Court
Govindasamy vs Muniyammal [Died on 4 June, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP NPD.No.1750 of 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 04.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRP NPD No.1750 of 2025 & CMP.No.10122 of 2025
Govindasamy . . . Petitioner
Versus
Muniyammal [died]
Meenakshi Sundaram [died]
1. Kothandaraman
2. Ranganayaki
Adhilakshmi [died]
3. Prema
4. Kalaiselvi
5. V.Loganathan
6. L.Viswanathan
7. L.Kamalanathan
8. T.Selvi . . . Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to set
aside the Order dated 27.01.2025 passed in E.A.No.9 of 2024 in E.P.No.19 of
2015 in O.S.No.671 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court at
Sriperumbudur by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
Page 1 / 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:24:57 pm )
CRP NPD.No.1750 of 2025
For petitioner : Mr.K.Murali
For respondents : Mr.G.A.Thiyagarajan
ORDER
Challenge has been made to the Order of the Executing Court
dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor to recall the
warrant issued for delivery of possession, in the present revision petition.
2. The suit in O.S.No.671 of 2008 has been decreed in favour of the
decree holder. When the Execution Petition has been levied, the Executing
Court has issued a warrant for delivery of possession. At this stage, the
judgment debtor has filed an application to recall the warrant on the ground
that they had filed an application to condone the delay in filing an application
to set aside the exparte decree in I.A.No.2 of 2022. However, the Execution
Court rejected the application and the Execution Court has infact has recorded
following facts as to how the matter has been protracted all these days :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:24:57 pm )
S.No. Date Event
1 09.12.2015 I.A.No.931 of 2016 by the petitioner/2nd JD to condone delay of 240
days to set aside the exparte decree was filed.
22.10.2019 I.A.No.931 of 2016 was dismissed for default for non issuance of
Notice of Hearing to the other side. The application was at the state
of Notice of Hearing for 4 years due to non-prosecution by the
2 petitioner.
09.11.2022 I.A.No.02/2022 in I.A.No.931/2016 filed by the petitioner/2nd JD to
condone delay of 1084 days to restore he I.A.No.931/2016. This
I.A.No.02/2022 was filed after passing of the Order dated 12.07.2022
4 12.07.2022 Order in E.P.No.19/2015 in O.S.No.671 of 2008 was passed and
delivery was ordered. The petitioner/2nd JD filed a counter in the
above E.P.
5 09.02.2024 E.A.No.05/2022 in E.P.No.19 of 2015 to recall warrant of delivery
was allowed.
6 0902.2024 E.A.No.07/2023 in E.P.No.19 of 2015 to implead the respondents 8
to 11 as the legal heirs of the deceased 5th respondent/5th decree
holder/ 5th plaintiff was allowed
7 30.01.2024 I.A.No.03/2024 in I.A.No.02/2022 in I.A.No.931 of 2016 in
O.S.No.671 of 2008 filed by the petitioner/2nd JD to condone delay
of 1409 days in filing a petition to implead the legal heirs of the
deceased 5th respondent/5th plaintiff. The application in I..No.03 of
2024 is still pending.
3. Now, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner is that they had filed an application to condone the delay in filing an
application to set aside the exparte decree and the said application has been
allowed with a cost of Rs.2000/- which has been paid. However, the certified
copy of the said Order has not been produced before this Court. Only a copy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:24:57 pm )
of the receipt for payment of Rs.2000/- has been produced before this Court.
A perusal of the said receipt indicate that what was allowed was only the
application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in I.A.No.02 of 2022 in
In I.A.No.931 of 2016 in O.S.No.671 of 2008 to implead the legal
representatives of the second judgment debtor. These facts have been clearly
captured in the Order of the Executing Court. Therefore, merely on the basis
of some Orders passed in the impleading application, the Orders of the
Executing Court cannot be set aside as matter of right. Hence, I do not find
any merits in this Civil Revision Petition. It is well open to the revision
petitioner to canvas the same before the Executing Court.
4. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:24:57 pm )
vrc
To,
The District Munsif Court,
Sriperumbudur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:24:57 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
04.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:24:57 pm )
