1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :10.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.807 of 20111 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Anwar Ali ..Petitioner/Petitioner/2nd Respondent/3rd Defendant Vs. Tamil Nadu Ashpestos and Cements Corporation Ltd., L.L.A. Building,735, Anna Salai, Chennai. .. Respondent/2nd Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.02.2011 made in E.A.No.191 of 2009 in E.P.No.89 of 2008 in O.S.No.112 of 1994 on the file of the Sub-Court, Uthamapalayam. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For respondent : Mr.A.Sivaji ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in E.A.No.191 of 2009 in E.P.No.89 of 2008 in O.S.No.112 of 1994 by the Sub-Court, Uthamapalayam. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted O.S.No.112 of 1994 on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur, praying to get a money decree, wherein the present revision petitioner and others have been shown as defendants. In O.S.No.112 of 1994 an ex-parte decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in E.P.No.89 of 2008. The revision petitioner and others have filed I.A.No.16 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, so as to condone the delay in filing a petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Under the said circumstances, the present application has been filed in E.A.No.191 of 2009, so as to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.89 of 2008. 3. The Court below after considering the rival contentions raised on either side, has dismissed E.A.No.191 of 2009. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that in O.S.No.112 of 1994, an ex-parte decree has been passed and in filing a petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree, there is a delay of 4373 days and in order to condone the same, I.A.No.16 of 2010 has been filed. Under the said circumstances, the present application has been filed in E.A.No.191 of 2009, so as to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.89 of 2008. But the Court below without considering the nature of steps taken by the revision petitioner by way of filing an application in I.A.No.16 of 2010, has erroneously dismissed E.A.No.191 of 2009 and therefore, the order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has contended that in O.S.No.112 of 1994 an ex-parte decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in E.P.No.89 of 2008 and further, I.A.No.16 of 2010 has been filed under Section 5 of the limitation Act, so as to condone the delay of 4373 days and the Court below after considering the overall circumstances has rightly dismissed E.A.No.191 of 2009 and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the Court below need not be interfered with. 6. It is an admitted fact that in O.S.No.112 of 1994, an executable ex-parte decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in E.P.No.89 of 2008. During pendency of the same, the revision petitioner has come forward with the present application in E.A.No.191 of 2009 praying to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.89 of 2008. It is equally an admitted fact that I.A.No.16 of 2010 has been filed for condoning the delay of 4373 days. 7. The Court below after considering the fact that I.A.No.16 of 2010 has been filed so as to condone the huge delay of 4373 days and also considering that no valid reasons have been in existence so as to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.89 of 2008, has dismissed E.A.No.191 of 2009. 8. As stated earlier, I.A.No.16 of 2010 has been filed so as to condone the huge delay of 4373 days and further, in O.S.No.112 of 1994 an executable decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in E.P.No.89 of 2008. Since E.P.No.89 of 2008 has been filed only on the basis of an executable decree, for the reasons stated in the petition, E.P.No.89 of 2008 cannot be stayed. Under the said circumstances, the dismissal order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same need not be interfered with. 9. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and since time has been granted to the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur to dispose of I.A.No.16 of 2010, the Sub- Court, Uthamapalayam is directed to take further proceedings in E.P.No.89 of 2008 after disposal of I.A.No.16 of 2010. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur. 2.The Sub-Court, Uthamapalayam. +1cc to Mr.M.Ajmal Knan, Advocate, SR.No.35134 +1cc to Mr.a.Sivaji, Advocate, SR.No.35016 pm GH : 13.10.2011 : 2p/5c C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.807 of 2011 10.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/