BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and C.M.P.(MD)No.131 of 2025

1.Kuruvammal

2.Gopalakrishnan

3.Krishnaveni 4.Vijayakumar

5.Mahalakshmi ... Petitioners -vs.-

Jayalakshmi ...Respondent PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai in E.A.No.3 of 2025 in E.P.No.

8 of 2025 in O.S.No.55 of 2008, dated 08.12.2025.

For Petitioners :Mr.K.Prabhu For Respondent :Ms.J.Roshini *****

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Aruppukottai in E.A.No.3 of

2025 in E.P.No.8 of 2025 in O.S.No.55 of 2008, dated 08.12.2025.

2.Heard Mr.K.Prabhu, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Ms.J.Roshini, learned Counsel for the respondent.

3.Originally, a suit was filed by the respondent before the Additional District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai, for permanent injunction and for other reliefs against the petitioners and others. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 03.06.2023. Thereafter, the plaintiff/decree holder has filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.8 of 2025 on 16.04.2025. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in the suit, the petitioners herein have filed an appeal along with a delay condonation application in I.A.No.1 of 2025 before the first appellate Court. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the petitioners, who are the defendants 3 to 7 in the suit, have filed an application in E.A.No.3 of 2025 to stay the execution proceedings.

The learned Additional District Munsif, Aruppukottai, vide impugned order, dated 08.12.2025, had dismissed the said application on the ground of delay and laches and the petitioners have not made out a case for granting interim stay of the execution proceedings. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that challenging the judgment and decree passed in the suit, the petitioners herein have filed an appeal along with a delay condonation application, which is pending for consideration. He further submitted that the application filed by the petitioners before the Executing Court is only for staying the execution proceedings for a limited period till the consideration of the delay condonation application and in the event of numbering the appeal, the petitioners can very well obtain an order of stay from the first appellate Court. He further submitted that if any order passed in the execution proceedings, it will cause irreparable loss to the petitioners and only for a limited period, the petitioners have filed an application for staying the execution proceedings. However, without even considering the provisions of law, the Court below has erroneously passed the impugned order, which is per se illegal. He also submitted that this Court may allow the application filed by the petitioners for the interest of justice and the petitioners have a fair chance of getting the judgment and decree in their favour in the first appeal. Hence, he seeks interference of this Court.

5.Per contra, Ms.J.Roshini, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the revision petitioner, who lost the suit, has not preferred the appeal suit within the limitation period, as guaranteed under the Limitation Act. The learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the appeal was not filed within the statutory period of thirty days and therefore, the first appeal was filed with a delay of 692 days, which is a period of two years and the condonation of delay is yet to be decided by the first appellate Court. She also submitted that the execution proceedings cannot be stalled indefinitely by citing the reason that an appeal is filed. In this case, the petitioners have not even filed the appeal in time and the appeal i