IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Order reserved on : 30.10.2025 Order pronounced on : 14.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP.No.3131 of 2023 & CMP.No.19396 of 2023 Bagyalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., No.93K5, First Floor, Karnataka Bank, Upstairs, Tiruppur, Rep. by its authorised representative/Power Agent J.Sankar Pandi ... Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order dated 26.04.2023 passed in E.A.SR.No.1992 of 2023 in E.P.No.24 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ragavendran For Respondent : Mrs.V.Pushpa

ORDER

The judgement debtor is the revision petitioner. The judgement debtor filed an application for condonation of delay in setting aside the ex-parte order. The said application came to be returned as not maintainable as an earlier application under Order XXI, Rule 106 of CPC in E.A.No.1 of 2023 in the very same Execution Petition has been dismissed. Challenging the said docket order, the judgment debtor is before this Court.

2.I have heard Mr.Ragavendran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mrs.Pushpa, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder.

3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the Trial Court erred in refusing to number the application and holding it to be not maintainable, on account of dismissal of E.A.No.1 of 2023, when the case of the petitioner was only E.A.No.1 of 2023 that had been dismissed, was filed to set aside the ex-parte order passed on 15.09.2022 and it was dismissed only on the ground that the said application was filed after 30 days from the date of ex-parte order and hence not maintainable. It is therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present application was filed for condonation of delay in order to cure the defect in filing E.A.No.1 of 2023. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Executing Court ought not to have put dismissal of E.A.No.1 of 2023 against the revision petitioner and dismissed even the condonation of delay application as not maintainable. He would further state that the Executing Court has power to condone the delay under Order XXI Rule 105(3) CPC and hence, the Executing Court has committed an error which requires interference in revision.

4.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in T.Natarajan Vs. Tejraj and another, in CRP.Nos.1457 & 1458 of 2018 dated 28.10.2020, where this Court held that Order XXI, Rule 106(4) of CPC as inserted by Madras High Court in exercise of powers under Section 122 of CPC, enables the parties to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and seek condonation of delay in seeking to set aside the ex-parte order passed under Order XXI, Rule 106 (1) of CPC. Relying on the ratio laid down by this Court in N.Rajendran Vs. Sriram Chits Tamil Nadu Private Limited, 2011 (6) CTC 268, this Court held that an application for condonaton of delay is maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prays for the revision being allowed.

5.Per contra, Mrs.Pushpa, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in a recent decision of this Court in Sundarambal and others Vs. Kanagaraj and others, reported in 2025 (4) CTC 225, after discussing the entire case law on the field, pertaining to the power of the Executing Court to condone delay in filing applications under Order XXI, Rule 106 of CPC, held that the ratio laid down by this Court initially in Rajendran’s case referred herein supra and subsequently followed by several other Judges, is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi Deceased through LRs and others Vs. Chandrika and others, 2016(6) SCC 157, where it has been held that any amendment inserted in the Cod