Madras High Court
C.Chenga Reddy (Died) vs K.Kaja Mohideen on 23 June, 2025
C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021 &
C.R.P.No.4312 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.Nos.2884 of 2021 and 4312 of 2017
and C.M.P.Nos.10469 and 10474 of 2025
C.Chenga Reddy (died)
C.Sridhar Reddy
S/o Late C.Chenga Reddy .... Petitioner in
both the CRPs
-vs-
1.K.Kaja Mohideen
2.Kathoon Bivi
3.Sahul Hameed
4.Rafi Ahamed
5.Basheer Ahamed
6.Balasubramanian
7.Syed Gani
8.The Commissioner
Ambattur Municipality
Chennai 600 053.
9.The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority, 8, Gandhi Irwin Road
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
10.The Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Ambattur Township, Ambattur
Chennai. ... Respondents in both
the C.R.Ps.
Prayer in C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021 : Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021 &
C.R.P.No.4312 of 2017
Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional
District Judge at Thiruvallur in C.M.A.No.21 of 2017 dated 05.11.2019 in
confirming the fair and decreetal order of the Court of the District Munsif Judge,
Ambattur in I.A.No.191 of 2017 in O.S.No.257 of 2004 dated 25.04.2017.
Prayer in C.R.P.No.4312 of 2017 : Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of
Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.04.2017 made
in I.A.No.711 of 2015 in O.S.No.257 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif
Court at Ambattur.
In both C.R.Ps
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Subba Reddy
For Respondents : RR 1 to 4, 8 and 9 - Served
RR 5 and 7 - served through paper
publication
R6 - died
Mr.A.Anandan
Government Advocate - for R8
Mr.DBR Prabhu - for R9
Mr.S.T.Raja - for R10
ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same suit. Hence, they were
clubbed together and heard for disposal.
2. The plaintiffs are the civil revision petitioners. It is the case of the
plaintiffs that one Sundaramma purchased the suit schedule mentioned property
by way of a registered sale deed on 30.03.1992. She passed away on 14.12.1999.
She left behind as her legal heirs, the first plaintiff Chenga Reddy and her sons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021 &
viz., the second plaintiff and one Prathap Reddy. It is the case of the plaintiffs
that the defendants 1 to 7 had purchased the property from a person, who did
not have title to alienate the same. On the basis of the fraudulent document
which had been executed in favour of the defendants 1 to 7, they had mutated
the revenue records in their favour. As the defendants have taken possession of
the property, the plaintiff sought for declaration of title and for delivery of
possession, damages and permanent injunction not to alienate the property and
for a mandatory injunction to remove the compound wall and for costs.
Summons were served and the pleadings were completed.
3. The plaintiffs were represented by their power agent one Manimegalai.
Pending the suit, the first plaintiff Chenga Reddy passed away on 07.12.2006.
As his wife Sundaramma passed away, the persons who were entitled to succeed
to the estate were the second plaintiff and his brother C.J.Prathap Reddy. As the
agent and the second plaintiff did not appear before the Court on the date it was
called for hearing, the suit was dismissed for default. Therefore, the plaintiff
filed applications viz., I.A.No.711 of 2015 to condone the delay of 297 days in
filing the restoration petition, I.A.No.191 of 2017 to set aside the order of
dismissal of the suit and to restore the suit on to its file. An application was also
filed to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay of 2337 days in filing
an application to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of Chenga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021 &
Reddy.
4. The learned District Munsif, instead of numbering and taking up the
Section 5 application alone, numbered both the Section 5 application, as well as
the application to restore the suit. They were numbered as I.A.No.711 of 2015
and I.A.No.191 of 2017. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The
respondents though served, did not enter appearance. Learned District Munsif,
Ambattur took up the applications for disposal.
5. He came to the conclusion that the second plaintiff ought to have been
vigilant and should not have relied upon the power of attorney for prosecuting
the case. Finding that no sufficient cause was shown, the learned Judge
dismissed not only the application under Section 5, but also the one under Order
IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the
restoration application, originally a revision was presented to this Court.
6. As objections were raised by the Registry stating that only an appeal
lies as against an order dismissing an application to restore the suit, the plaintiff
came to present C.M.A.No.21 of 2017. By an order dated 05.11.2019, the learned
I Additional District Judge at Tiruvallur dismissed the appeal. She concurred
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021 &
with the view of the learned District Munsif that the plaintiff had not been
vigilant to follow the suit proceedings and consequently confirmed the order.
Aggrieved by the order passed in C.M.A.No.21 of 2017, C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021
has come up before this Court.
7. Insofar as C.R.P.No.4312 of 2017 is concerned, that challenges the order
passed by the learned District Munsif in refusing I.A.No.711 of 2015. The
revisions were entertained by this Court and notice was ordered to the
respondents.
8. The contesting respondents have not entered appearance. Mr.Anandan,
learned Government Advocate appears for the 8th respondent, Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu
appears for the 9th respondent and Mr.S.T.Raja appears for the 10th respondent.
9. Mr.Subba Reddy pleads that the second plaintiff had bonafidely trusted
the power of attorney appointed during the time of presentation of plaint. He
points out from the affidavit that the counsel who was representing the plaintiffs
had informed the power of attorney about the dismissal of the suit. Yet, the
power of attorney had failed to inform her principals. The second plaintiff / civil
revision petitioner had approached the lawyer in the year 2013 and it was then,
to his shock and surprise, he came to know that the suit had been dismissed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021 &
default. Immediately on coming to know, in April 2013 an application was filed
to restore the suit. He urges that valuable rights relating to immovable property
are involved and the Courts below ought to have taken a liberal interpretation to
the provisions and should have given the plaintiff an opportunity to continue
with the suit. Hence, he seeks for setting aside the orders.
10. Counsels appearing for the State and State authorities plead that they
will abide by any order that is passed by this Court.
11. A perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff had been following the
suit with the assistance of an agent. The agent seems to have diligently
prosecuted the suit from 2004 till 2012. For whatever reasons, she had not been
prosecuted it thereafter. The failure of the power of attorney to inform the
principal about the dismissal of the suit should not be around to visit the
plaintiffs with the loss of their valuable property. The Court below should have
considered that the first plaintiff had passed away and it was the son who had
come forward with the application.
12. It is not a case, where the defendants had filed an application to set
aside the exparte decree with condonation of delay. The Courts were dealing
with an application filed by the plaintiff. A plaintiff has nothing to gain by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021 &
delaying the suit, which he had presented. The reasons that have been given to
me are sufficient for the purpose of condonation of delay. I am inspired by the
judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1996 (7) SCC 123 (N.Balakrishnan
-vs- Krishnamurthy), wherein the Supreme Court has said, where vital rights of
property are involved, the delay can be condoned and the rights of parties can be
balanced by imposing costs on the party who has filed the application.
13. With respect of the dismissal of the applications to condone the delay,
set aside the abatement and to bring on record the legal representatives, I have
to point out that the learned District Munsif, as well as the learned District Judge
at Tiruvallur, have failed to note that the legal representative of the deceased
first plaintiff was already on record. There is no dispute that Mr.Chenga Reddy's
son is Mr.Sridhar Reddy. When a legal heir is already on record in some other
capacity, no question of abatement of the suit arises. If the suit does not abate,
then all that the Court would have to do if found necessary, is to implead the
other legal representative and proceed further with the suit. Unfortunately, this
crucial aspect has not been taken note of by the Courts below. This is case of
serious error of jurisdiction which has resulted in failure of justice and
therefore, this Court has to interfere by exercising its power under Article 227 of
the Constitution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021 &
14. In the light of the above discussion, C.R.P.Nos.2884 of 2021 and 4312
of 2017 are allowed on the following terms:
(a) The civil revision petitioner / plaintiff shall deposit a sum
of Rs.25,000/- each (with respect to I.A.Nos.711 of 2015
and 191 of 2017) to the credit of O.S.No.257 of 2004 on
the file of the District Munsif at Ambattur. Cumulatively, a
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) shall be
deposited within a period of eight weeks from today.
(b)In case, the amount is not deposited, the benefit of
condonation of delay and restoration of the suit granted
by this order will stand automatically forfeited.
(c) In case the order is complied, the learned District Munsif
is requested to restore the suit on to its file. He shall issue
notice to the private respondents informing them about
the restoration of the suit, proceed further and dispose of
the suit within eight months from the date of the
restoration.
(d)As the contesting respondents have not entered
appearance in the revisions, there shall be no costs in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021 &
these revisions.
15. The above Civil Revision Petitions are allowed on the above terms. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
KST
To
1.The I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur.
2.The District Munsif, Ambattur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021 &
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KST
and 4312 of 2017
23.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
