Execution orders cannot proceed based on ex parte judgments that have been set aside without resolving the main proceedings; adherence to procedural timelines is essential.

ORDER :

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District, in E.P.No.2 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2015, E.P.No.4 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 2015, E.P.No.3 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2015, E.P.No.5 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 2015, E.P.No.6 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2015, E.P.No.07 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.18 of 2015 and E.P.No.05 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 2015, dated 01.04.2024.

2. Heard Mr.V.M.Bala Mohan Thambi, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.D.R.Murugesan, learned Counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are the tenants. The petitioner filed the petitions before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal against the respondents for eviction on the ground of wilful default. Since the respondents failed to appear before the Court below, they were set ex parte and ex parte orders were passed. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed Execution Petitions. In the meanwhile, the respondents herein have also filed petitions to set aside the ex parte orders along with delay condonation applications. Subsequent to that, the respondents had filed applications in E.A.Nos.22, 24, 25, 26, 23 and 27 of 2018 seeking to stay the execution proceedings till the disposal of delay condonation. After hearing the parties, the learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, vide order, dated 31.10.2019, had allowed the above applications in E.A.Nos.22, 24, 25, 26, 23 and 27 of 2018. Against the said orders, the petitioner herein had filed Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P(MD)Nos.234 to 239 of 2020 and the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order, dated 21.01.2021, had passed the following order:

“6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view, ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to the Court below to dispose of condone delay petitions and the exparte set aside petitions within a time frame. Accordingly, the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, is directed to dispose the condone delay petitions in I.A.Nos.2, 4, 6, 7, 3 and 8 of 2018 and exparte set aside petitions in I.A.Nos.15, 17, 19, 20, 16 and 21 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.Nos.1, 9, 14,17, 3 and 18 of 2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The interim order granted in the above Execution Applications will be in force till three months. If the respondents/tenants are not co-operating in concluding the delay petition and exparte set aside petition, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed with the Execution petition.”

4. Thereafter, the Executing Court, vide order, dated 20.04.2022, had allowed the execution petitions filed by the petitioner herein. However, on the same day, the delay condonation application filed by the respondents were also allowed and challenging the order passed by the Executing Court, dated 20.04.2022, the respondents herein have filed Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P(NPD)(MD)Nos.820 to 825 of 2022. The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order, dated 20.04.2022, had passed the following order:

“6.Now at the time of passing delivery orders in EP petitions, delay condonation petitions were allowed, exparte decree set aside petitions were also allowed. So the EP Court cannot pass any delivery orders, on the basis of the exparte decree. Only after deciding the exparte decree set aside petitions, the EP Court has to pass orders in