He Said He Was in the US and Never Got the Summons. The Madras High Court Said That Argument Was Already Lost.

A buyer won a decree for specific performance against a landowner from Dharmapuri in February 2013, without the landowner in court. The landowner, now living in Houston, spent the next thirteen years saying he had been abroad and was never served. On 25 September 2026 the Madras High Court shut the door. It called his latest application "a clear abuse of process", dismissed it on its own motion and gave the trial court two months to finish execution.

The case

The order is in C.R.P. No. 4221 of 2026, M. Gunaseelan v. S. Nagarajan, decided by Justice P.B. Balaji of the Madras High Court. It was reserved on 28 August 2026 and pronounced on 25 September 2026, and it runs to 11 pages.

The cause title gives the respondent's address in Dharmapuri and says he is "Now residing at" Richmond Avenue, Houston, USA. He appeared through a power agent in Dharmapuri. The petitioner is the buyer who holds the decree.

How the case got here

On the facts recorded in the order (paragraphs 3, 4 and 7):

• The buyer sued in O.S. No. 38 of 2006 for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 12 November 2004.
• The owner entered appearance and filed a written statement. He then stayed away, and an ex parte decree was passed on 28 February 2013.
• About two years later he applied to condone a delay of 731 days in seeking to set the decree aside. His reason was that he had not been served. The trial court dismissed the application, and the High Court dismissed his revision in C.R.P. No. 4058 of 2023.
• In that revision the owner said he had gone abroad and did not know of the decree. The High Court noted that in a second suit for specific performance between the same parties, the same plea had failed in C.R.P. No. 4641 of 2015 on 21 April 2021, and that the Supreme Court had dismissed his special leave petition, SLP No. 14370 of 2021, on 20 September 2021.
• A sale deed has since been executed in the buyer's favour. The owner's own prayers in paragraph 9 put it at document No. 2320 of 2014, executed through the court on 23 September 2014, with a delivery order following on 28 October 2022. The buyer's counsel told the court the owner was "only delaying handing over possession" by filing one application after another.
• In execution, the owner filed a Section 47 CPC application in 2023, and then in 2026 an application to summon the court bailiff who had served the summons in the original suit. On 30 June 2026 the executing court allowed the summons. The buyer came to the High Court.

What the court held

• The decree is final. The attempt to set aside the ex parte decree failed and became final. The court said it was unable to see how the owner could "re-open the issues that had attained finality" by examining the bailiff, and called the executing court's reasoning "absolutely perverse" (paragraph 8).
• Section 47 has limits. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with questions on execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree. The owner's prayers sought to set aside the 2013 decree, cancel the sale deed executed in execution and cancel the delivery order. "None of these prayers pertain to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree" (paragraph 10).
• Same plea, third time. The owner was "repeatedly attempting to agitate the very same contentions" on service of summons that had been rejected in this suit and in the other one, up to the Supreme Court. The court held "the very Section 47 CPC application itself is a clear abuse of process" (paragraph 10).
• No ransom. The owner "cannot hold the petitioner for ransom by taking out such an application", given a decree for specific performance "as early as in 2013" (paragraph 11).

The court allowed the revision and, using its revisional power under Article 227 of the Constitution on its own motion, dismissed the Section 47 application as well. It told the Dharmapuri court to dispose of the pending delivery application and the execution petition within two months of receiving the order (paragraphs 12 and 13). No costs.

What it means for an NRI owner

The owner here is the NRI, and he is the one who lost. The order shows the point at which "I was abroad and never served" stops working. The court did not decide whether the summons was in fact served on him. It held that the question had already been decided against him in the condonation round and could not be raised again in execution.

For an owner abroad, a suit filed in India runs whether or not you follow it. A power of attorney holder who watches the court record, and a current address on file with the court, are the practical answers. Our guides to a power of attorney from the USA and to attesting one at the Consulate in Houston cover the document, and our guide to power of attorney misuse covers the agent's side. The Supreme Court's August ruling on an agreement to sell and a tenancy is another case where a sale agreement decided who held a property.

A decree against you, or a summons you did not receive, is a matter for a lawyer who can read the court record.

FAQ

What did the Madras High Court decide on 25 September 2026? It set aside an order allowing the court bailiff to be summoned, dismissed the judgment debtor's Section 47 CPC application as an abuse of process, and directed the Dharmapuri court to finish execution within two months.

Who is the NRI in this case? The respondent, S. Nagarajan. The cause title says he is now residing in Houston, USA, and he appeared through a power agent in Dharmapuri.

Did the court decide whether he was served with summons? No. It held that the question of service had already been decided against him when his application to condone a 731-day delay failed, and could not be reopened in execution.

What can a Section 47 application be used for? Questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree. The court held that the owner's prayers to set aside the decree and cancel the sale deed did not fall within it.

How long did the case take? The suit was filed in 2006 on a sale agreement of 12 November 2004, and the ex parte decree was passed on 28 February 2013. The High Court's order of 25 September 2026 sets a two-month limit for execution.

66 MG Road newsdesk

Sources

• M. Gunaseelan v. S. Nagarajan, C.R.P. No. 4221 of 2026, Madras High Court, P.B. Balaji J, reserved 28 August 2026, pronounced 25 September 2026, 11 pages. Full text, carrying the mhc.tn.gov.in/judis footer on every page, read on 2 October 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173061361/
• Paragraph 1 of the order refers to "REA. No.2 of 2016"; the prayer and paragraphs 4, 9, 12 and 13 give R.E.A. No. 2 of 2026, which we use. Paragraph 13 refers to "E.P. No.53 of 2014"; the prayer gives R.E.P. No. 53 of 2013 and the Tamil prayer in paragraph 9 gives R.E.A. 53-2013. The owner's Section 47 prayers are recorded in Tamil in paragraph 9, in a legacy Tamil font that displays as Latin characters in the online copy. We decoded them as asking to set aside the ex parte decree of 28 February 2013, cancel sale deed No. 2320 of 2014 of 23 September 2014, and cancel the delivery order of 28 October 2022 in R.E.A. No. 62 of 2014. The court's own summary in paragraph 10 agrees that none of them concern execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.