Madras High Court
Smt.Palaniammal vs N.Arumugam on 10 November, 2025
CRP No.1404 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No.1404 of 2023 and CMP No.9438 of 2023
1.Smt.Palaniammal
2.M.Ravikumar
3.M.Dhanabagyam ... Petitioners
Vs
N.Arumugam ... Respondent
Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set
aside the order and decree in I.A.No.213 of 2022 in O.S.No.97 of 2011 dated
09.12.2022 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court at Tirupur.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Himavanth
For Respondent : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel
for the respondent.
2. The present revision is arising out of an application filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act in and where by the petitioner sought for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:52:30 pm )
condondation of delay of 3711 days in filing an application to set aside the
exparte decree in a suit filed by the respondent for bare injunction
(permanent injunction).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioners
appear to have been served with summons in the suit, it is the specific case of
the petitioners that they have not engaged any counsel to appear on their
behalf and they dispute the appearance made by some advocate before the
trial court. Further, inviting my attention to the judgment passed, without any
consideration of the pleadings and documentary evidence adduced by the
plaintiff and there being non-compliance of the Order XX Rule 4 of Civil
Procedure Code, the counsel states that the said judgment has to be
necessarily set aside.
4. Taking advantage of the decree for injunction, the respondent has
proceeded to execute a settlement deed and asserted that the property
belongs to the petitioners. He would rely on the decision of this Court in
R. Stella vs V.Antony Francis reported in (2019) 5 LW 161.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:52:30 pm )
petitioners have already alienated the property and they have no subsisting
interest in the suit property and submits that the delay is inordinate and the
trial court has rightly considered the application made by the petitioners and
found that there is no sufficient cause made out for condoning the huge and
inordinate delay of 3711 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte
decree.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on
either side.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were served with summons in
the suit. Though it may be their contention that they have not engaged any
counsel to defend them in the suit, they cannot plead ignorance of the fact
that the suit has been laid against them, since admittedly the suit summons
have been served and even according to them, they have not taken any steps
to engage a counsel to defend their interest in the suit.
8. It is the further case of the petitioners that they came to know about
the exparte decree only when the respondent filed a suit against the purchaser
of the petitioners and immediately they have taken out the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:52:30 pm )
application.
9. Insofar as the fact that the properties has been already alienated by
the petitioners as contended, as a vendor, the petitioners may be obligated to
provide a clear title to the purchasers and therefore, the action taken by the
petitioners to protect the interest of the purchasers cannot be faulted with.
However, in any event, the delay is 3711 days and admittedly, summons
were served. The reasons assigned by the petitioners are clearly not
amounting to “sufficient cause” , warranting the delay to be condoned. I do
not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Court.
10. Sofar as the reliance placed in R.Stella vs V.Antony Francis
reported in (2019) 5 LW 161, this Court has recently held in the case of
R.Rasappan vs D.Rajalakshmi (died) and Others reported in 2025 (4) CTC
337 that non-compliance of Order XX Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code can
be taken into consideration only in an application under Order IX Rule 13 of
Civil Procedure Code or any appeal filed against the exparte decree and not
at the stage of condonation of delay or even in a revision under Article 227
of the Constitution of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:52:30 pm )
11. In the light of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the trial Court dismissing the application. However, it is made
clear that it is open to the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings to
protect the right of their purchasers in accordance with law and subject to the
law of limitation.
12. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.11.2025
Index:yes/no
Website:yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
sr
To
The Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:52:30 pm )
P.B.BALAJI.,J
sr
10.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:52:30 pm )
