S.S.Prabhaharan Vs P.Marimuthu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

S.S.Prabhaharan Vs P.Marimuthu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition disposed of upholding the Executing Court's restoration order; Trial Court directed to dispose of E.A.No.1 of 2021 within one month on its own merits, including maintainability; no order as to costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P(MD)No.18649 of 2024) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Executing Court rightly allowed the restoration application E.A.No.2 of 2022 (Order IX, Rule 9 CPC) restoring E.A.No.1 of 2021, which had been dismissed for default — the revision being confined to the restoration order and not extending to the merits of E.A.No.1 of 2021. +1 more

Court's answer

The merits of the application in E.A.No.1 of 2021 (whether it can be allowed under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC) cannot be considered in this revision petition, which lies only against the restoration order in E.A.No.2 of 2022.

Ratio / Principle

No infirmity or irregularity is found in the order passed by the Executing Court allowing the restoration application on cost.

Key takeaways

The Trial Court (Executing Court) is directed to dispose of E.A.No.1 of 2021 within one month of receipt of a copy of the order, on its own merits and in accordance with law, including the question of its maintainability.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (Art. 227, Constitution of India) against order dated 06.01.2024 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, in E.A.No.2 of 2022 in E.A.No.1 of 2021 in E.P.No.11 of 2020 in O.S.No.26 of 2013. Decree in a specific-performance suit was under execution (E.P.No.11 of 2020); the first respondent's E.A.No.1 of 2021 (pleaded as under Order XXI/XXVII, Rule 97 CPC) was dismissed for default on 26.10.2022, and his restoration application E.A.No.2 of 2022 under Order IX, Rule 9 CPC was allowed on a cost of Rs.5,000/-. HELD: (i) the revision lies only against the restoration order; the merits of E.A.No.1 of 2021 are not examinable in this revision; (ii) no infirmity or irregularity in the Executing Court's conditional restoration; (iii) Executing Court directed to decide E.A.No.1 of 2021 within one month on its own merits, including the question of maintainability. Revision disposed of; no costs; connected C.M.P(MD)No.18649 of 2024 closed (Madurai Bench, K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J., 02.01.2025).

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 06.01.2024 of the Executing Court (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur) in E.A.No.2 of 2022 (restoration application under Order IX, Rule 9 CPC) in E.A.No.1 of 2021 in E.P.No.11 of 2020 in O.S.No.26 of 2013, by which the restoration application was allowed on cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the first respondent.¶17
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur · 06.01.2024
Prior proceeding
Revision petitioner filed suit for specific performance in O.S.No.26 of 2013 before the Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur.¶18
Prior proceeding
Pending suit, second respondent's Counsel reported 'No instructions'; suit posted for ex parte evidence.¶18
Prior proceeding
Revision petitioner examined as P.W.1 on 13.03.2019; Exhibits A.1 to A.5 marked.¶18
Prior proceeding
Trial Court reserved the suit for pronouncement of judgment on 20.03.2019.¶18
Prior proceeding
First respondent filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2019 to re-open and to implead himself as necessary party.¶18
Prior proceeding
Those interlocutory applications were dismissed on 18.07.2019; no revision was preferred against the dismissal.¶18
Prior proceeding
First respondent filed A.S.No.158 of 2020 against the decree in O.S.No.26 of 2013; the appeal is still pending.¶22
Prior proceeding
Decree-holder (revision petitioner) initiated execution in E.P.No.11 of 2020 before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur.¶23
Prior proceeding
In the execution proceedings, the first respondent filed E.A.No.1 of 2021 (recorded in the petition as under 'Order XXVII, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908'); it was posted on 26.10.2022 for enquiry.¶23
Prior proceeding
E.A.No.1 of 2021 was dismissed for default on 26.10.2022 because the first respondent failed to appear.¶31
Prior proceeding
First respondent then filed E.A.No.2 of 2022 under Order IX, Rule 9 of CPC seeking restoration of E.A.No.1 of 2021.¶23
Prior proceeding
Executing Court allowed the restoration application imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the first respondent; this order is impugned in the present revision.¶23