SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 14941

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
T.Murugesan – Appellant
Versus
P.K.Palanisamy – Respondent
CRP. No.3324 of 2023 | CMP. No.20628 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Kumarasamy
For the Respondents: No Appearance

The execution of a decree should await the outcome of a pending application to set aside an ex-parte decree.

Headnote:The judgment concerns the dismissal of Execution Petition E.P. No.117 of 2019 in O.S. No.214 of 2015, where the appellant sought to set aside an ex-parte decree and had requested condonation of delay. The court allowed the appeal, indicating that proceedings in the Execution Petition should await the decision on the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The primary issue was whether the execution of the decree could continue pending the outcome of the application for setting aside. The court reasoned that if the setting aside application were allowed, the execution would no longer proceed, thus allowing the revision petition and directing the Executing Court to pause pending decisions in the application. The petition was thus allowed, with a clear directive for future proceedings depending on the outcome.

Table of Content
1. appellant's grievance regarding execution petition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's observations on the direction for execution pending appeal. (Para 3 , 4)
3. outcome of the revision petition allowing for further directions. (Para 5)

ORDER

The defendant in O.S.No.214 of 2015 before the Sub-Court, Udumalpet is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of E.P.No.117 of 2009 which was taken out by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 144 days in filing the application to set aside the ex- parte decree.

2. Despite service of notice on the respondent, the respondent has neither chosen to appear in person nor through counsel. I have therefore proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Kumarasamy. I have also gone through the records filed by way of typed set of papers, including the impugned order in E.P.No.117 of 2009.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Executing Court, in and by the impugned final order in the Execution Petition has directed draft sale deed to be filed in furtherance of the ex-parte decree for specific performance. Today, I have already allowed CRP.No.4542 of 2023, setting aside the dismissal of condone delay application by the Trial Court. I have also directed the Order 9 Rule 13 application, to set aside the ex-parte decree to be expedited.

4. In the light of the above, the proceedings in the Execution Petition can certainly await the decision in the setting aside application. In the event of the setting aside application Order IX, Rule 13 CPC being allowed, then no further orders can be passed in the execution petition, as the decree itself would be set aside.

5. In such circumstances, I am allowing the Civil Revision Petition with a direction to the Executing Court to await the decision in the Order IX Rule 13 application in O.S.No.214 of 2015 and subject to the decision of the same, further orders, either dismissing the Execution Petition or proceeding with the filing of draft sale deed and other follow-up steps may go on. With the above directions, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top