C.Neelakandan Vs K.Saranya

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 19.09.2025 in E.A.No.2 of 2025 in EP No.14 of 2023 in HMOP No.2740 of 2020 passed by the Sub Court, Tiruvaur.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): G Govarthanan

¶14

For Respondent(s): M/s.R.Ezhilarasan

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶17

1

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

CRP No. 287 of 2026

¶20

The dismissal of stay application in Execution Petition filed by the respondent/wife before the Family Court is under challenge.

¶21

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revision filed by the petitioner, challenging the reception of documents filed as a photocopy containing list of jewels, which according to the petitioner, was taken by coercion and undue force before the police authorities was challenged before this court in an earlier round in CRP No.1744 of 2022. The said revision came to be dismissed on 23.06.2022.

¶22

It is now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Review has been filed after three years in SR No.70336 of 2025 and citing the same, the petitioner wanted protection before the executing court and therefore, he moved an application for stay. The said application was dismissed by the Family Court. Challenging the above dismissal, the revision has been filed.

¶23

In fact, at the time of admitting the revision, in order to give some breathing time to the petitioner, I also gave interim stay. However, the petitioner has not taken

¶24

2

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

CRP No. 287 of 2026

¶27

advantage of the interim stay granted by this Court and has not taken any steps to have the Review listed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the learned Judge who passed the orders has superannuated and the petitioner is finding difficult to list the review petition. The petitioner is not even able to demonstrate that the review petition has been numbered as on date.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would state that the

¶30

order itself was passed in June 2022 and it is not known how a review, without even a condone delay application can be filed in the year 2025 in SR No.70336 of 2025. Learned counsel would also state that no papers in the review petition has also been served on the respondent and he therefore states that there is no merit in the revision.

¶31

I have been carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶32

I do not find any merit in the revision petition. The attempt to stall the execution petition was made by the petitioner by falling back on an alleged review

¶33

3

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

CRP No. 287 of 2026

¶36

application filed in CRP No.1744 of 2022. The fate of the review petition is not known till date. I therefore no find any error or infirmity in the order of the executing court/Sub Court, Thiruvarur dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.

¶37

In fine, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, the Execution Petition shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is unable to get any interim protection from the review Court, the executing court shall proceed with the execution petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

26.02.2026

¶39

sr

¶40

Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

¶41

4

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

CRP No. 287 of 2026