An inordinate delay in filing a revision petition (1330 days) will not be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if the party was aware of the order through active participation in related proceedings and fails to provide sufficient cause.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the decreetal order dated 23.02.2022 made in R.E.P.No.124 of 2020 in O.S.No.813 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Salem.

ORDER

1. The petitioners are seeking condonation of a delay of 1330 days in prefering the revision, challenging the order passed in REP No.124 of 2020 in O.S.No.813 of 2008 dated 23.02.2022.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the contesting respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that the petitioners were third parties to the suit as well as the execution proceedings and hence they were necessitated to take out a formal application seeking leave of this Court, even to prefer the revision. He would further state that the leave has also been granted by this Court and since the petitioners were strangers to the proceedings before the trial Court as well as the Executing Court, they should be given an opportunity to challenge the order passed in REP No.124 of 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also take me through the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application and state that the the petitioners were incapacitated to challenge the order in the revision petition at an earlier point of time. Learned counsel therefore prays for the delay to be condoned so that an opportunity may be given to the petitioners to challenge the order in REP No.124 of 2020.

4. Per contra, Mr.H.Shabeer Ali, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent states that it is not as if the petitioners were not aware of the order passed in REP No.124 of 2020. He would point out that REA No.7 of 2023 was filed in REP No.124 of 2020 obstructing to the delivery warrant and after contest, the said REA No.7 of 2023 came to be dismissed, as against which, admittedly, CMA Nos.7 and 8 of 2025 have been filed by the petitioners which are pending on the file of Subordinate Judge, Salem. Thus, the petitioners have actively participated in the execution proceedings and even assuming they are not parties to the suit or the Execution proceedings, they were aware of the order passed in REP No.124 of 2020 as early as on 23.02.2022. The present petition, seeking condonation of delay of 1330 days in filing the revision petition, as if the petitioners are not aware of the order cannot be accepted.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side,

6. The petitioners have obstructed to the execution proceedings by taking out an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code and they have been unsuccessful in the said application. Admittedly, the orders of the Executing Court against the petitioners are under challenge in CMA Nos.7 and 8 of 2025 before Sub Court, Salem.

7. In view of the above, I do not see any merit in the present petition, especially warranting exercise of discretion in an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Admittedly, the petitioners have not been able to show sufficient cause explaining the inordinate delay of 1330 days.

8. With the above observation, CMP No.2361 of 2026 is dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the first respondent seeks a direction for expeditious disposal of REP No.124 of 2020.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418 has directed all execution petitions to be disposed of within a period of six months. Admittedly, here, the obstruction petition has been dismissed. In the event of th