The court upheld the dismissal of a condonation petition due to fabricated claims regarding knowledge of an ex-parte order and inordinate delay.

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order and decretal order of the X Assistant City Civil Court of Madras in E.A. No.09 of 2025 in E.P. No.1562 of 2016 in O.S. No.448 of 2008 dated 18.11.2025, is even otherwise illegal, incompetent and irregular.

For Petitioner : M/s.V.Srimathi For Respondents : Mr.D.Dirshath Raj for M/s.A.S.Kailasam and Associates **********

ORDER

The 5^th defendant in OS.No.448 of 2008 is the revision petitioner, challenging the dismissal of an application filed in EA.No. 9 of 2025, dismissing Section 5 application seeking condonation of delay of 2779 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex- parte order dated 18.08.2017 in the Execution Petition.

2. I have heard Mrs.V. Srimathi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.D.Dirshath Raj for M/s. A.S. Kailasam and Associates, learned counsel for the first respondent/caveator. I have also gone through the records including the impugned order in the revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Srimathi would state that though the delay appears to be long and inordinate on the face of it. The petitioner had adduced satisfactory reasons for not being able to file the application earlier. She would further state that the suit itself has been filed against a dead person without any orders from the Court and the petitioner was also not served with summons in the suit. She would further point out that only in the Execution Petition, after having been served with notice, the petitioner came to know about the decree passed in the suit. In such circumstances, the delay though is 2779 days, it would not be a matter for concern. The learned counsel further states that the Executing Court has not even considered the reasons assigned by the petitioner and she would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.

4. Per contra, Mr.D.Dirshath Raj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would bring to my notice that the petitioner was the 5^th defendant in the suit and as early as on 18.08.2017, before the Executing Court, he was served and taking note of the same, the Executing Court had set him ex-parte and thereafter, posted the matter to 13.10.2017 for steps in respect of other judgment debtors. He would also bring to my notice that on 17.04.2024, the petitioner had entered appearance through Counsel and the vakalat was returned. The Executing Court directed a fresh delivery warrant to be issued and posted the Execution Petition to 13.06.2024. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent that, the petitioner had full knowledge about the Execution Proceedings and he has sworn to a false affidavit as if he came to know of the ex-parte order only on 27.03.2025.

5. Insofar as the suit having been filed against the dead person, the learned counsel for the first respondent/temple would state that referring to the cause title, the suit was originally filed against Ellammal alias Shanti and after her demise, her legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 12.02.2009 in I.A.No. 9083 of 2008 and the Court was never informed by any of the defendants, regarding the death of the first defendant and written statement was filed only along with the condone delay application and in such circumstances, when neither the petitioner nor the other legal heirs had disclosed the factum of the death of the first defendant, it cannot be now put against the first respondent. The learned counsel would therefore state that the Executing Court has rightly dismissed the application.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned on either side.

7. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay of 2779 days, it is the contention of the petitioner that without even ser