(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 09.04.2026 passed in I.A.No.115 of 2023 in A.S.No.202 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram.)

1. Heard Mr.Gururaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.J.Titus Enock, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The revision petitioner has preferred two appeals, one in A.S.No.19 of 2019 and another in A.S.No.202 of 2019. One appeal was against the dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner seeking a permanent injunction. The other challenged the decree granting a permanent injunction to the respondent. Both the first appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.04.2022.

3. According to Mr.R.Gururaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, the applications to restore the appeals were filed within the period of limitation namely 30 days, however, the papers were misplaced, which necessitated the filing of the present application for condonation of delay of 303 days. He would further state that there is a clear reference with regard to the application being filed in time, and the fresh application along with the condonation of delay was necessitated only on account of the non-availability of the earlier application in the court records.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the petitioner is willing to cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. He would also state that even in respect of the other appeal, a similar application has been filed to restore the appeal, and the same is yet to be numbered.

5. Per contra, Mr.J.Titus Enock, learned counsel for the respondent, would state that though it is represented by Mr.Gururaj that the applications to restore the appeals were filed in time, there is no interim order. In fact, in one of the appeals, as far as the respondent is concerned, he has no notice of any such application being filed. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.186 of 2013 is being challenged in the said appeal in A.S.No.19 of 2019. Since the appeal has been dismissed and there is no order of interim stay from any other forum, an execution petition has already been filed.

6. In fact, Mr.J.Titus Enock, learned counsel for the respondent, would invite my attention to the order passed in C.R.P.No.765 of 2026 between the same parties, wherein, taking note of the pendency of the appeal and there being no interim stay granted, I had directed the Executing Court to dispose of the E.P. within a period of three months. Despite the said order being passed on 16.02.2026, it is brought to my notice that the execution petition is still pending. The learned counsel for the respondent would, therefore, seek suitable directions to be issued in the present revision in order to protect the interest of the respondent.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

8. Admittedly, the present application for condonation of delay was filed only in respect of the restoration of appeal, namely A.S.No.202 of 2019, which is against the judgment and decree dismissing the suit filed by the revision petitioner. Though Mr.Gururaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that a similar application has been filed in respect of the other appeal (A.S.No.19 of 2019) as well, admittedly, the said application has not even been numbered as of date. In fact, all these matters were duly considered while disposing of C.R.P.No.765 of 2026, and a specific direction was given by order dated 16.02.2026 to the Executing Court to dispose of the E.P. insofar as E.P.No.40 of 2023 is concerned.

9. In the light of the above, considering that the petitioner should not be non-suited on account of the misplacement of papers at the Registry and the second application was warranted only to avoid any technical objections, I am inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Court and condone the delay in filing I.A.No.115 of 2023.

10. It is also made clear that the application to restore the appeal shall also be formally numbered and allowed in order to facilitate the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal in A.S.No.202 of 2019 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date when the restoration application is allowed.

11. It is, however, made clear that insofar as E.P.No.40 of 2023 is concerned, there is no interim stay as on date. In fact, the appeal itself is yet to be taken on file despite restoration orders passed by the First Appellate Court. In view of the specific direction granted in C.R.P.No.765 of 2026, directing the E.P. to be disposed of within a period of 3 months, and in view of the fact that the E.P. is pending even as on date, despite lapse of five months, I am inclined to direct the Executing Court to proceed with E.P.No.40 of 2023 and dispose of the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, notwithstanding any pendency of applications or appeals touching upon the subject matter.

12. Although the above directions are issued, Mr.Gururaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, has taken exception to the conduct of the respondent, contending that despite filing applications to mark documents, the respondent has not entered the witness box to lead evidence.

13. Mr.J.Titus Enock, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would however state that the respondent is not letting in any oral evidence, and that no additional documents are being marked on the side of the respondent.

14. Mr.Gururaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner intends to lead evidence. In view of the same, it is directed that the petitioner shall lead evidence, and his examination in-chief and crossexamination shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the E.P. shall be disposed of after hearing the arguments from both sides, within a period of two weeks thereafter. Any application filed to restore A.S.No.19 of 2019 shall be decided independently, and the pendency of such an application shall not prevent the Executing Court from proceeding with the matter.

15. With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.