Petitioner sought to condone a 22-day delay in filing a review application against an order rejecting his delay-condonation petition in a Civil Revision arising from execution proceedings. The Court held that review was not maintainable against the revision-related order and that the petitioner's conduct showed protraction of execution proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.27068 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 13.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.P.(MD)No.17968 of 2025 in REV.APLC.(MD)No.86266 of 2025
Murali
... Petitioner
Vs.
Paul Doss
... Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 114 r/w. Order XXXXVII Rule 1
and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, to condone the delay of 22 days in filing the present review application as against the order dated 27.06.2025
passed by this Court in CMP(MD) No.9694 of 2025 in CRP (MD) SR. 915 of 2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prakash
O R D E R
The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to
condone the delay of 22 days in filing the present Review application as against the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by this Court in CMP(MD)
1/5
W.P.(MD)No.27068 of 2024
No.9694 of 2025 in CRP (MD) SR.915 of 2025.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has filed CMP(MD) No.9694 of 2025 in CRP
(MD) SR.915 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone
the delay of 948 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition as against the order passed in E.P.No.44 of 2018 dated 08.02.2021 in O.S.No.192 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District. This Court by its order dated 27.06.2025, had detailed the facts of the case and dismissed the petition with certain directions and it was also stated in the order that the petition seems to be filed to drag on the execution proceedings. On perusal of the order dated 27.06.2025, it is seen that the petitioner has lost his case before the trial Court, which directed him to pay the advance amount of Rs.5 lakhs with 9% interest from the date of sale agreement till the date of judgment and also with 6% interest from the date of judgment to till the date of realisation. While so, the petitioner without complying with the order of the trial Court, pending execution proceedings, had approached the Lok Adalat, wherein agreed to pay the decree amount, however, without paying the
2/5
W.P.(MD)No.27068 of 2024
same within the time granted, has come forward with the said petition, that too, with inordinate delay without proper explanation for the said delay.
4. Now aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2025, the petitioner
has come forward with the present petition to file a review application with the delay of 22 days.
5. Apparently, it is seen that the petitioner is filing petition after petition with inordinate delay which seems to show his conduct of protracting the execution proceedings and his view of non compliance of the directions of the Courts. It is pertinent to note that the suit is of the year 2016 and the execution proceedings is of the year 2018 and even after attaining finality at Lok Adalat also, the petitioner is reluctant to comply the same. However, as against the order of Civil Revision Petition, review is not maintainable and if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he has to work out the appeal remedy in the manner known to law. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands rejected. There shall be no orders as to costs.
3/5
W.P.(MD)No.27068 of 2024
13.11.2025
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Order : Speaking/ Non Speaking DP
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
DP
4/5
W.P.(MD)No.27068 of 2024
ORDER made in
C.M.P.(MD)No.17968 of 2025 in REV.APLC.(MD)No.86266 of 2025
13.11.2025
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Should the 22-day delay in filing a review application against an order dismissing delay condonation be condoned, and is review maintainable against such order?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Murali
Paul Doss
M.Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
