N.Bakthavachalam vs N.Sarasu

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on:01.10.2026 Pronounced on: .10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP. Nos.3798, 3801, 3802, 5923, 5925 & 5926 of 2026
and CMP. Nos.25629, 25615, 25630, 16465, 16469 & 16473 of 2026
CRP. Nos.3798, 3801 & 3802 of 2026:-
N.Bakthavachalam
S/o.Natesa Achari,
No.36A, Mettu Street,
Tirunindravur Town,
Poonamallee Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
..Petitioner
Vs
N.Datchayani,
W/o.Gurumurthy,
No.9, M.P.Sarathy Street,
M.V. Nagar, Tirunindravur Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. ..Respondent
PRAYER in CRP. No.3798 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition has been
filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
30.04.2026 made in E.A. No.3 of 2025 in E.P. No.6 of 2020 on the file of the
learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
PRAYER in CRP. No.3801 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition has been
filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
30.04.2026 made in E.A. No.3 of 2025 in E.P. No.5 of 2020 on the file of the
learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
__________
Page of
1 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
PRAYER in CRP. No.3802 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition has been
filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
30.04.2026 made in E.A. No.3 of 2025 in E.P. No.4 of 2020 on the file of the
learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
CRP. No.5923 of 2026:-
N.Bakthavachalam
S/o.Natesa Achari,
No.36A, Mettu Street,
Tirunindravur Town,
Poonamallee Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. .. Petitioner
Vs
Sarasu
W/o.Balu Achari,
No.9, M.P.Sarathy Street,
Tiruvallur District. .... Respondent
PRAYER in CRP. No.5923 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed
under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order passed by the Subordinate
Judge at Poonamallee in E.A. No.153 of 2022 in E.P. No.6 of 2020 in O.S.
No.90 of 2009.
CRP. No.5295 of 2026:-
N.Bakthavachalam
S/o.Natesa Achari,
No.36A, Mettu Street,
Tirunindravur Town,
Poonamallee Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. .. Petitioner
Vs
Ulaganathan,
S/o.Natesa Achari,
No.9, M.P.Sarathy Street,
M.V.Nagar, Tiruvallore Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. .... Respondent
__________
Page of
2 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
PRAYER in CRP. No.5925 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed
under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order dated 13.12.2023, passed by
the Subordinate Judge at Poonamallee in E.A. No.151 of 2022 in E.P. No.4 of
2020 in O.S. No.90 of 2009.
CRP. No.5296 of 2026:-
N.Bakthavachalam
S/o.Natesa Achari,
No.36A, Mettu Street,
Tirunindravur Town,
Poonamallee Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. .. Petitioner
Vs
N.Datchayani,
W/o.Gurumurthy,
No.9, M.P.Sarathy Street,
M.V. Nagar, Tirunindravur Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. .... Respondent
PRAYER in CRP. No.5926 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed
under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the
learned Subordinate Judge at Poonamalee in E.A. No.152 of 2022 in E.P. No.5
of 2020 in O.S. No.90 of 2009.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M.L.Ravi in all CRPs
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Prabakar in all CRPs
__________
Page of
3 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
COMMON ORDER
Heard Mr.M.L.Ravi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and
Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent in all the Civil Revision
Petitions. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by the
petitioner, as well as the counter filed by the respondent.
2. Mr.M.L.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in
the Execution Petitions in E.P. No.4, 5 and 6 of 2020, the petitioner suffered
exparte orders dated 13.12.2023 (E.P. Nos.4 and 6 of 2020) and 04.01.2021
(E.P. No.5 of 2020). E.P. Nos.4 and 6, seeking condonation of delay of 374
days and E.P. 5 of 2020, seeking condonation of delay of 1447 days. The
Executing Court dismissed all the Section 5 Applications, as against which,
CRP. Nos.3798, 3802 and 3801 of 2026 have been filed.
3. The decree holder took out E.A. Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2022 in the
respective Execution Petitions in E.P. Nos 4, 5 and 6 of 2020, invoking Order
XXI, read with Section 94 and 151 CPC, seeking demolition of the building and
disconnect the electricity service connection provided to the suit schedule
property. The Execution Applications in E.A. Nos.152 and 153 of 2022, came
__________
Page of
4 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
to be allowed on 04.03.2024 and in fact, it is brought to my notice that
Mr.Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondents that possession has already
been taken through Court on 02.04.2026. However, he fairly admits that insofar
as E.A. No.151 of 2022, in E.P. No.4 of 2020, though E.A. No.151 of 2022 was
allowed on 13.12.2023, Execution Petition is still pending and the respondent is
yet to take possession of the suit property.
4. Mr.M.L.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
suit was filed by the respondents for partition of Survey Nos.216/3 in O.S.
No.90 of 2009. As the said Survey Number did not pertain to the property of the
petitioner, the petitioner did not contest the suit and thereby an exparte
preliminary decree came to be passed on 22.07.2009. A final decree was also
passed on 04.12.2013 and Execution Petition Nos.4, 5 and 6 of 2020 came to be
filed by the decree holder on 24.10.2020, for taking possession of the property
allotted to the decree holder in terms of the final decree passed on 04.12.2013.
Mr.M.L.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner would however contend that
pending the said Execution Petitions, the decree holder took out applications for
amendment of the Survey No.216/3 to 216/30A in E.A. Nos.187, 188 and 189
of 2021.
__________
Page of
5 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the said
Execution Applications seeking amendment of the survey number were allowed
on 26.04.2021 and in the said applications, the petitioner was called and set
exparte. Thereafter, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
belatedly, I.A. No.1 of 2022, was filed by the decree holders to amend the
Survey Number in the suit in O.S. No.90 of 2009. Though the said application
was strongly resisted by the petitioner, by filing a counter and the Trial Court
also dismissed the application or amendment on 01.03.2023, the dismissal of
I.A. No.1 of 2022 was challenged by the respondent/decree holders in CRP.
Nos.2376 of 2023 and this Court allowed the revision petition on 10.07.2023.
6. Mr.M.L.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner was never aggrieved insofar as the subject matter of the suit for
partition was Survey No.216/3. However, in view of the mischievous attempt
to amend it to the S.No.216/30A, the petitioner was seriously aggrieved and
therefore, he even filed a suit in O.S. No.75 of 2024 for a permanent injunction
to protect his possession in Survey No.213/30A. The learned counsel for the
petitioner would further state that the Executing Court ought to have given an
opportunity to the petitioner to defend the applications for amendment and
ought to have decided the amendment applications, after hearing the objections
__________
Page of
6 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
of the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that in the
meantime, E.A. Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2022, came to be allowed directing
demolition as well as disconnection of electricity service connection and
challenging the said orders, revision petitions have been filed with a delay of
374 days in two matters and delay of 1447 days in one matter. The learned
counsel would state that the consequences of the orders impugned in these
revision petitions are serious in nature and cause serious prejudice to the
petitioner and therefore, in the interest of justice, he contends that the petitioner
may be given an opportunity to contest the Execution Applications before the
Executing Court and thereafter, on due enquiry, the Executing Court can
dispose of all the Applications.
8. Per contra, Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/decree holder would submit that the petitioner was set exparte in
E.P. Nos. 4 and 6 of 2020 on 13.12.2023 and E.P. No.5 of 2020 on 04.01.2021
and further the petitioner also filed an Application under Section 47 of CPC on
11.03.2002. Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder
would further state that the said Section 47 Application was not even diligently
__________
Page of
7 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
pursued and the said Applications in E.A. Nos.167, 168 and 169 of 2022 under
Section 47 read with 151 CPC, came to be dismissed for default on 04.11.2022.
According to Mr.Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner
made an attempt by seeking to restore the dismissal of E.A. Nos.167, 168 and
169 of 2022, by filing Applications under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, on 13.12.2022.
9.Insofar as the Applications filed by the decree holders for demolition of
the building and disconnection of electricity service, Mr.Prabakar, would
contend that the petitioner was given reasonable and fair opportunity to file a
counter and in fact, right from 14.09.2022 to 13.12.2023, the petitioner did not
even choose to file a counter and only thereafter, the applications came to be
allowed. He would also point out that in the amendment applications filed in
I.A. No.1 of 2022, the petitioner had even filed his counter affidavit on
12.10.2022 and he had also entered appearance in CRP. No.2376 of 2023,
which was filed by the respondents challenging the dismissal of their Order 6,
Rule 17 amendment application.
10. Mr.R.Prabakar would further state that the petitioner even filed a
fresh suit on 05.03.2024 in O.S. No.75 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Poonamallee, which factum has been admitted to even by Mr.M.L.Ravi,
__________
Page of
8 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite the same, the revisions challenging
the orders in E.A. Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2022, dated 04.03.2024 and
13.12.2023, came to be filed only on 03.12.2024. Mr.R.Prabakar, learned
counsel for the respondent would therefore state that there is absolutely no
cause, much less sufficient cause, shown by the petitioner warranting exercise
of discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
11. Insofar as the other three revision petitions in CRP. Nos.3798, 3801
and 3802 of 2026, Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel contends that the
applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, were filed only on
20.01.2025, and here again, the delay of more than one year in two cases and
more than four years in one case has not at all been explained, leave alone,
satisfactorily explained. On the contrary, referring to the dates that have been
brought to my notice and discussed hereinabove, Mr.R.Prabakar contends that
it is not as if the petitioner was under any incapacity to not challenge the orders
in time or file necessary applications in time, because he has been participating
in other proceedings during the relevant period of time. He would therefore
state that there is absolutely no reason for interfering with the orders dismissing
the condone delay applications insofar as the three revision petitions are
concerned and to condone the delay insofar as the other revision petitions in
__________
Page of
9 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
CRP. Nos.5923, 5925 and 5926 of 2026.
12. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel on either side.
13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondents are brothers
and sisters. The property in S.F.N0.216/30A, Thirunindravur Village, originally
belonged to their father, Natesan Achari. The suit for partition in O.S. No.90 of
2009 was filed in respect of the suit property in S.F. No.216/30A. However,
while instituting the suit, by inadvertence, the property has been described as
S.F. No.216/3. Since the revision petitioner thought it unnecessary to contest the
suit, since it did not relate to him, he remains exparte and allowed, not only an
exparte preliminary decree but also exparte final decree application to be
passed. It was at the stage of the final decree application that the plaintiff came
to know about the mistake in the Survey Number and immediately an
application was filed seeking amendment of the Survey Number. The said
amendment application filed in the Execution Petitions came to be allowed by
the Executing Court and thereafter, the respondent/decree holders realizing that
without amending the decree in the suit, it was not proper or permissible to seek
amendment of the Execution Petition alone, they took out I.A. No.1 of 2022.
__________
Page of
10 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
The said application was contested by the petitioner and initially dismissed by
the Trial Court. However, this Court set aside the said order dismissing the
amendment application by allowing CRP. No.2376 of 2023, admittedly, the said
amendment order passed in the revision has become final with the respondent
not taking up the matter further by way of Special Leave Petition before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
14. Though there is some force in the submission of Mr.M.L.Ravi,
learned counsel for the petitioner that the correct procedure should have been to
have sought for amendment of the plaint first and thereafter, as a consequence,
the judgment and decree and it could not have been vice versa, today with the
order in CRP. No.2376 of 2023 dated 10.07.2023, having become final, I am
unable to see how such a technical objection can be sustained at this juncture.
Therefore, as on date, the survey number has been amended to the knowledge of
the revision petitioner, and all his attempts to defy the decree have also been
unsuccessful.
15. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders
were passed exparte and an opportunity ought to be given to the petitioner to
contest the applications, including the revisions that have been filed with delay,
__________
Page of
11 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka
Housing Board and Others , reported in 2025 INSC 1104 , has held that while
considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court concerned, can
only test the correctness of the reasons assigned by the petitioner, seeking
condonation of delay and cannot go into the merits of the main case. In the said
revision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the entire gamut of case
law under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and ultimately, held that even if the
petitioner who has approached the Court with delay, has a very good case on
merits, even then, it is incumbent for such petitioner to first show and make out
sufficient cause, before the Court becoming entitled to look into the merits and
demerits of the main case and attempt to balance the equities.
16. In the present case, as already discussed herein above and as rightly
putforth by the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.Prabakar, it is not as if
the petitioner was not aware of the pending proceedings. He himself has
challenged the decree by filing Section 47 Applications and has not pursued the
same, which resulted in dismissal on 04.11.2022. The attempts to have the
applications restore under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, have also been unsuccessful.
The petitioner who was also given opportunity to file a counter in E.A. Nos.151,
152 and 153 of 2022 and only thereafter, the Executing Court passed orders in
__________
Page of
12 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
the said Execution Applications.
17. Taking note of the fact that, despite sufficient opportunities, the
petitioner did not even file a counter, in fact, in respect of Schedule C and D,
delivery was effected on 02.04.2024 and the same was recorded by the Court on
17.04.2024. That apart, the petitioner also contested I.A. No.1 of 2022, the
amendment Application filed for amendment of Survey Number and in fact,
even succeeded in having the said application dismissed. He even participated
in the revision petition challenging the dismissal of the said Order 6 Rule 17
Application. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the delay of 374 days in
two cases, 1447 days in one case, can be justified on the side of the petitioner.
In fact, dates also clearly overlap and clearly, the petitioner has failed to show
sufficient cause and due diligence.
18. The mere fact that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to
contest cannot be a ground to condone delay, when the petitioner has miserably
failed to show sufficient cause. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the revision
petitions. Similarly, even insofar as the applications filed in the other revisions
in CRP. Nos.5923 & 5926 of 2026, insofar as two of the said matters, the
delivery of possession has already been taken on 02.04.2026 and also recorded
__________
Page of
13 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
by the Executing Court. Therefore, nothing survives for consideration in these
two petitions, seeking condonation of delay. Even in respect of the CRP.
No.5925 of 2026, despite the Executing Court allowing E.A. No.151 of 2022, as
early as on 13.12.2023, the affidavit has been sworn to by the petitioner only on
20.01.2025 and in the interregnum period, as already discussed herein above,
the petitioner has actively participated in various proceedings before the Court.
Hence, by no stretch of imagination, the delay sought to be condoned can be
justified or held to be satisfactory and sufficiently explained.
19. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in these Civil Revision
Petitions. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.

16-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes
RKP
To
The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
__________
Page of
14 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

2026:MHC:4262
CRP No.3798 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI, J.
RKP
Pre-delivery Order in
CRP. Nos.3798, 3801, 3802, 5923, 5925 & 5926 of 2026
and CMP. Nos.25629, 25615, 25630, 16465, 16469 & 16473 of 2026
16-10-2026
__________
Page of
15 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )