Nandhini Manivannan vs V. Ravichandran

CRP Nos.5774 and 5790 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 5774 and 5790 of 2026
and
CMP NO.24965 and 25055 OF 2026
CNR:{HCMA012111262026}
CRP No. 5774 of 2026
1. Nandhini Manivannan
2. M. Sivaraman
..petitioners(s)
Vs
Parvathi (Deceased)
V. Sakthivel (Deceased)
1.V. Ravichandran
2.V. Sivakumar
3.A. Sasikala
4.S. Sujitha
5.S. Sushmi
..Respondent(s)
CRP No. 5790 of 2026
1. Nandhini Manivannan
2. M.Sivaraman
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Parvathi (Deceased)
V. Sakthivel (Deceased)
Page1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

CRP Nos.5774 and 5790 of 2026
1. V.Ravichandran
2. V.Sivakumar
3. A.Sasikala
4. S.Sujitha
5. S.Suhmi,
..Respondent(s)
Prayer in CRP.No.5774 of 2026: This Civil Revision is filed under Article 227
of Constitution of India praying to direct the learned Judge to number the
Unnumbered REA Stay Application in REA No.3 of 2026 in REP No.24 of
2025 in IA No.256 of 2006 in OS No.184 of 2022 on the file of the Subordinate
Judge, Mettur and to set aside the return dated 14.08.2026.
Prayer in CRP.No.5790 of 2026:This Civil Revision is filed under Article 227
of Constitution of India praying to direct the learned Judge to number the
unnumbered R.E.A. Stay Application in REA.No.2 of 2026 in REP No.24 of
2025 in I.A.No.256 of 2006 in O.S.No.184 of 2002 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Mettur and to set aside the return dated 14.08.2026.
For Petitioners in
both CRPs : M/s.C.S.Vedavalli
For Respondent in
both CRPs : Mr.D.Lakshmipathy
for M/s.T.Gopinathan
For R1 to R5
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

CRP Nos.5774 and 5790 of 2026
C O M M O N O R D E R
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order of return
passed by the Executing Court returning an application filed by the petitioners
seeking stay of execution.
2. The predecessor in interest of the respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit seeking
partition against the petitioners and other respondents. The trial Court passed
preliminary decree for partition granting 1/4th share to the plaintiff, the
predecessor in interest of the respondents 1 and 2. Subsequently, the plaintiffs
filed an application for passing of final decree and the trial Court was pleased to
pass final decree in the suit. The said final decree was put into execution in
R.E.P.No.24 of 2025.
3. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the petitioners filed the second
appeal before this Court in S.A.No.303 of 2019 and they also filed stay
applications. However, the second appeal was dismissed for default.
Subsequently, applications have been filed to condone the delay for nearly 4
years, seeking restoration of the second appeal.

4. In the meantime, the respondents 1 and 2 filed Execution Petition seeking
to take delivery of the property allotted to them. Therefore, the petitioners filed
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

CRP Nos.5774 and 5790 of 2026
an instant application seeking stay of execution proceedings under Order XXI
Rule 26 of CPC and the same has been dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, the
petitioners have come before this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the
second appeal filed by the petitioners have been dismissed for default and the
petitioners have taken steps to restore the same. In the meantime, if the
respondents are allowed to execute the decree, the same will cause irreparable
hardship to the petitioners. Therefore, the execution proceedings initiated by
the respondents shall be stayed.
6. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the stay petitions and also
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners filed a second appeal before this Court in the year 2019 itself and the
same was dismissed for default and there is a delay for nearly 4 years in seeking
restoration of the second appeal. Since the second appeal filed by the
petitioners was dismissed for default and there was no attempt to restore the
same immediately, the respondents/decree holder filed an application seeking
execution of the decree. Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC is enabling provision
permitting the Executing Court to stay the execution proceedings so as to enable
the aggrieved party to move the Appellate Court and to get the order of stay in
appeal .
Page4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

CRP Nos.5774 and 5790 of 2026
7. In the case on hand, the petitioners moved the Appellate Court and got the
second appeal numbered and the same was dismissed for default.
8. In such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the Order
XXI Rule 26 of CPC, the Executing Court rightly return the application filed by
the petitioners as not maintainable.
9. I do not find any error in the impugned order, accordingly, these Civil
Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ub
Page5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

CRP Nos.5774 and 5790 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR J.
ub
CRP.Nos.5774 and 5790 of 2026
02-11-2026
Page6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

CRP Nos.5774 and 5790 of 2026
Page7 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )