Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Vasanthi vs Swamidas
2024 Latest Caselaw 17663 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 17663 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 September, 2024

Madras High Court

Vasanthi vs Swamidas on 5 September, 2024

Author: G.R.Swaminathan

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

                                                                              C.R.P.(MD)No.917 of 2024




                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 Dated : 05.09.2024

                                                    CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                            C.R.P.(MD)No.917 of 2024
                                                      and
                                           C.M.P.(MD)No.5029 of 2024


                Vasanthi                            ... Petitioner / Respondent / Plaintiff


                                                         Vs.
                Swamidas                           ... Respondent / Petitioner / Defendant No.3


                Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                India, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 17.11.2023 passed in
                I.A.No.201 of 2022 in O.S.No.207 of 2007 by the learned District Munsif cum
                Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kodaikanal and to set aside the same by
                allowing this Civil Revision Petition.


                          For Petitioner    : no appearance

                          For Respondent    : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/5
                                                                             C.R.P.(MD)No.917 of 2024




                                                     ORDER

None appears for the revision petitioner yesterday. The case was

therefore directed to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal' today. Today

also, there is no representation. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

2. The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.207 of 2007 for permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession of the

suit property. The respondent herein was shown as the third defendant. The

plaintiff obtained an exparte order of add interim injunction. To vacate the

same, the third defendant filed I.A.No.286 of 2007. The matter was heard at

length. Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked on the side of the plaintiff / petitioner.

Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were marked on the side of this respondent herein. On the side

of the first defendant, Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked. The court below

considered the materials on record on either side. It noted that the third

defendant (respondent) herein had already obtained decree against the

petitioner / plaintiff in O.S.58 of 2003 and O.S.No.59 of 2003. Copies of the

decrees obtained in the aforesaid suits is enclosed in the typed set of papers.

They were also marked as Ex.R1 & Ex.R2. Interim injunction granted in

favour of the plaintiff was also vacated. While so, an exparte decree came to be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

passed on 22.07.2013. The third defendant / respondent herein claims that he

was not aware of passing of the exparte decree. There was a delay of 3132 days

in filing IA. To set aside the same and to condone the delay, I.A.No.201 of

2023 was filed. Vide order dated 17.11.2023, the said IA was allowed by the

court below. Questioning the same, this civil revision petition came to be filed.

3. As already noted, the revision petitioner has not appeared to question

the correctness of the order passed by the court below. After going through the

materials on record, I am more than satisfied that the impugned order does not

call for interference. While passing an exparte decree dated 22.07.2013, the

court below had observed that the defendants were set exparte. If only the

court below had a look at the order dated 29.10.2007 made in I.A.No.286 of

2007, such decree would not have been passed. It is also seen that the third

defendant had filed the written statement on 15.02.2012. There is no reference

to the contents of the written statement in the Judgment dated 22.07.2013. No

doubt, there has been enormous delay on the part of the respondent herein in

filing a set aside petition. But then, to render substantial justice, the trial

munsif had condoned the delay. Discretion has been properly exercised. The

exparte Judgment and decree dated 22.07.2013 in O.S.No.207 of 2007 suffers

from perversity on the very face of it. At this stage, I do not want to pass any

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

more comments. The impugned order has been correctly passed and it does not

warrant interference.

4. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.




                                                                             05.09.2024
                NCC               : Yes / No
                Index             : Yes / No
                Internet          : Yes / No
                rmi


                To:

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kodaikanal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

rmi

05.09.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter