[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
G.Santhosh Kumar vs E.Sridhar on 27 February, 2026
CRP No. 4378 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-02-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 4378 of 2025
and CMP no.22410 of 2025
1. G.Santhosh Kumar
S/o. D.Ganesan No. 6, 2nd Street,
Brindavanam, Chetpat, Chennai 31
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. E.Sridhar
No. 7, 1st Street, Brindavanam, Chetpat,
Chennai 31
2.E.Prabhu
No. 7, 1st Street, Brindavanam, Chetpat,
Chennai 31
3.E.Parivallal
No. 7, 1st Street, Brindavanam, Chetpat,
Chennai 31
4.Vijayalaxmi
No. 3, Anna 2nd street, Mahalakshmi
Nagar, Rajkilpakkam Chennai 73
5.G.Gopinath
No. 6, 2nd Street, Brindavanam, Chetpat,
Chennai 31
6.G.Elaiyarani
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
CRP No. 4378 of 2025
No. 6, 2nd Street, Brindavanam, Chetpat,
Chennai 31
7.Bhavani
No. 6, 2nd Street, Brindavanam, Chetpat,
Chennai 31 Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code
against the order passed in EP No.1070 of 2024 dated 28.04.2025 in O.S.No.6454 of
2019 on the file of XXVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner(s): M/s. J.Umacharan
For Respondent(s): S.Vennimalai
For R.1 To R.3
R.4 to R.7 – No appearance
ORDER
Heard Mr.J.Umarcharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.S.Vennimalai, learned counsel for the contesting respondents 1 to 3.
2. The first defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the order of
delivery in EP No.1070 of 2024 dated 28.04.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the defendants were directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
deliver vacant possession of the suit property and also pay Rs.3,60,000/-(Rupees Three
Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) as damages for use and occupation with further direction to
pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month towards future
damages for use and occupation of the suit property from 01.11.2018.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defendants contested
the suit by filing written statement and issues were also framed. However, the
defendants were under the bonafide impression that the trial was not taken up, as after
framing of issues, the suit was listed only under “not in the list category” and in the
mean time, due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the defendants were not in a potion to attend to
the suit proceedings. When they contacted the erstwhile counsel, he was not able to give
any proper explanation and he was not in a position to return the case bundles stating
that he had misplaced the same. Therefore, the defendants were constrained to engage a
new counsel in August 2022 and after verification of records, the new counsel informed
the petitioners about the exparte decree in October 2022 passed on 22.12.2021. The
defendants counsel states that an application was immediately filed to set aside the
exparte decree along with an application to condone the delay. He therefore states that
considering the relief sought for in the suit and the prejudice caused to the defendants,
the executing court ought to have granted stay of further proceedings in the execution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
petition without proceeding to order delivery.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is
absolutely no bonafide in the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 states that the suit property was purchased for
a valuable sale consideration under registered sale deed dated 16.10.2008 and the father
of the petitioner who was then in occupation of the suit property sought for three months
time to vacate and deliver possession. Taking a human approach, the respondents also
acceded to the said request and granted time to vacate, despite having purchased the
property in October 2008. However, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel
for the respondents that taking advantage, the defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.8991 of
2008 seeking to set aside the sale deed executed by the father and also for partition and
separate possession as if they had a share in the suit property and the father had no
independent right to convey the property to the respondents 1 to 3. However, the said
suit in O.S.No.8991 of 2008 was dismissed for default in the year 2011. An attempt to
restore the suit to file was also dismissed and only thereafter, with no other option to
recover possession of the property, the present suit in O.S.No.6454 of 2019 was filed for
recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation and absolutely no defence is
available to the defendants in view of the fact that the suit filed by them challenging the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
sale deed and claiming partition in O.S.No.8991 of 2008 also attained finality. The
learned counsel would therefore state that there is no error committed by the executing
court in ordering delivery and not rejecting the request for say to enable the defendants
to move the condone delay application as well as stay application.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on
either side.
7. In fact, after hearing the counsel for the parties, at the last hearing, I also
indicated that I did not find any merit in the revision and if the petitioner/1st defendant
requires any reasonable time to vacate and hand over, they can file an affidavit seeking
such time which would be considered by this Court subject to hearing the objections of
the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, if any. However, today, learned counsel
for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not willing to file an affidavit of undertaking
and the defendants are desirous of awaiting orders in the condone delay application and
setting aside application. In view of the above, I am proceeding to decide the revision on
merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
8. As on the date of Execution Petition being taken, there was no impediment
for the Court to order delivery. Mere pendency of Section 5 application and Order IX
Rule 13 application would not amount to stay. In fact, I find that it was only after the
revision was entertained in 2025, only pending revision in 2026 along, the condone elay
application has been numbered.
9. In the light of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the
executing Court ordering delivery. The civil revision petition is dismissed. The
executing court shall dispose of E.P.No.1070 of 2024. In the meantime, it shall be open
to the petitioner to prosecute the condone delay application and setting aside application.
10. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.02.2026
sr
Index:yes/no
Website:yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
To
The XXVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
P.B.BALAJI.,J
sr
27.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
