T S PERUMAL Vs. T G THULASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are defendants in O. S. No. 97/2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. They were set exparte on 2. 1. 2004 and they filed application to set aside the exparte decree along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The respondent/plaintiff remained exparte in the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and thereby filed an application to set aside the exparte order under Order IX Rule 7 C. P. C. The abovesaid applications are pending before that Court. In the meanwhile, the respondent/plaintiff filed E. P. , for transmission of the decree from the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu to District Munsif Court, Vandavasi in E. P. No. 5/2006 and the said petition is also pending before that Court.

(2.) THE petitioners filed petition under Section 94 (e) of C. P. C. for the relief of stay of operation of the decree passed in O. S. No. 97/2004. It was not numbered. But it was given serial number C. R. No. 3710/2007.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif rejected the stay application by observing that the District Munsif cannot stay the operation of the decree under Section 94 (e) C. P. C. , and the petitioners can very well work out their remedy under Order XXI Rule 26 C. P. C. , before the Executing Court stating the facts of pendency of petition for setting aside the exparte decree pending before the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.