Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 51915 (MAD)

P.Peethambaram v. A.Balasubramanian

CMP(MD)/3176/2026 · 2026-07-15

S Sounthar

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

C.M.P.(MD)No.3176 of 2026 in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)SRNo.11925 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR C.M.P.(MD)No.3176 of 2026 in C.R.P.(MD)SR.No.11925 of 2026 P.Peethambaram ... Petitioner Vs 1. A.Balasubramanian 2. D.Nagarathinavel 3. G.Thiruppathi ... Respondents Prayer in C.M.P.(MD)No.3176 of 2026: This petition is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 328 days in filing the present Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 18.12.2024 made in EP No.29 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court Vedasandur in OS No. 19 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul dated 22.03.2025. Prayer in C.R.P.(MD)SR.No.11925 of 2026: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC praying to set aside the order dated 18.12.2024 made in EP No.29 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court Vedasandur in OS No.19 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul dated 22.03.2025. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P.(MD)No.3176 of 2026 in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)SRNo.11925 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.V.Baskaran For Respondents : Mr.M.Karthikeyan for R1 Mr.C.Meenakshi Rama Prabhu for R2 Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar O R D E R This petition is filed seeking to condone the delay of 328 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition against the sale proclamation order dated 18.12.2024 made in E.P.No.29 of 2017. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, it is stated by the petitioner that challenging the very same order, the petitioner already filed an Execution Application in E.A.No.15 of 2025. The filing of application by the petitioner is stated as a reason for delay in approaching this Court. 3. When the petitioner challenged the very same impugned order by filing execution application before the concerned Court, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the same by way of revision. Hence, the Civil Revision petition is not maintainable. Further, the 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P.(MD)No.3176 of 2026 in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)SRNo.11925 of 2026 petitioner has not given any reason for condoning the delay of 328 days in filing the revision challenging the order dated 18.12.2024. Filing of petition before the concerned executing Court cannot be the reason for condoning the delay of 328 days. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs. 15.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm To 1. The Sub Court Vedasandur. 2. The Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P.(MD)No.3176 of 2026 in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)SRNo.11925 of 2026 S.SOUNTHAR, J. vsm C.M.P.(MD)No.3176 of 2026 in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)SRNo.11925 of 2026 15.07.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis