[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Maragadham Ammal vs Sagadhevan (Died) on 20 February, 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment reserved on : 18.12.2026 Judgment pronounced on : 20.02.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.No.830 of 2024
& CMP.No.4103 of 2024
1.Maragadham Ammal
2.Velmurugan
3.Thirumurugan
4.B.Raman @ Tamil Prabhakaran
5.Panjali
6.Gomathi
Beeman (Died)
Rani (Died) .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.Sagadhevan (Died)
2.Saraswathi
3.Kumaran Gandhi
4.Kavitha Gandhi
5.S.Arul Gandhi .. Respondents
[Sole Respondent died Respondents 2 to 5 are brought on record as LR’s of the
deceased Sole Respondent viz., Sagadhevan vide Court order dated 03.12.2025
made in CMP.Nos.30252, 30253 & 30258 of 2025 in CRP.Nos.830 of 2024.]
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India,
to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.72 of 1994 by the Sub-
Court, Dharmapuri dated 06.03.2023.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
For Petitioners : Mr.Sharath Chandran
for Mr.Gowwtham Thelak V.B
For Respondents : Mr.P.Valliappan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.P.V.Law Associates for RR2 to 5
R1 Died (Steps taken)
ORDER
The revision petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.72 of 1994 on the file
of the Sub-Court, Dharmapuri. The suit for specific performance filed by one
Sagadhevan was decreed ex-parte on 06.03.2003 and the decree holders have
initiated execution proceedings in REP.No.38 of 2011. The present revision
petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.72 of 1994 by the Sub-Court,
Dharmapuri on 06.03.2003 as being illegal.
2.I have heard Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for Mr.Gowwtham
Thelak V.B, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.P.Valliappan,
learned Senior Counsel for M/s.P.V.Law Associates for the contesting
respondents 2 to 5.
3.Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would
submit that the plaintiff, Sagadhevan had initially filed a suit for permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
injunction, in which suit, he had specifically made an averment that he had an
agreement of sale with the 1st petitioner, Maragadham Ammal alone. There was
no mention of the said Maragadham Ammal, representing her minor children
and subsequently, the said suit has been withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh
suit for specific performance. However, in the suit for specific performance, the
plaintiff has impleaded the minors, as defendants and has sought for a decree for
specific performance, in respect of even the share of the minors.
4.It is also the contention of Mr.Sharath Chandran that when the second
suit was returned repeatedly by the trial Court for filing the copy of the plaint in
the earlier suit for permanent injunction, to suit her convenience, the plaintiff
avoided filing of the copy of the plaint and by doing so, suppressing the case on
which she came to Court at the first instance, the plaintiff attempted to get a
decree against two minors, whose interest was never represented by their
mother, the 1st petitioner in the suit sale agreement. It is therefore the contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the plaintiff has played fraud upon
the Court and fraud vitiating all acts, the petitioners are entitled to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of
India and seek for setting aside the decree passed in the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
5.It is the further contention of Mr.Sharath Chandran that in a suit for
specific performance, the trial Court is bound to ensure that the plaintiff comes
to Court with clean hands and also establishes readiness and willingness at all
relevant points of time, before becoming entitled to a decree for specific
performance. Inviting my attention to the judgment passed by the trial Court, he
would contend that there has been no application of mind by the trial Court
whatsoever and therefore, on this ground as well, the judgment and decree has
to be necessarily set aside. He would also state that the plaintiff was aware of
the fact that one Beeman, the 4th defendant in the suit become the owner of the
property, pursuant to a compromise decree passed in an earlier civil proceedings
and the trial Court, without even considering the interplay of Section 19 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, has erroneously granted the decree for specific
performance.
6.It is also the specific contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the decree violating mandate of Order XX Rule 4 of CPC is a
nullity and when it has been brought about by playing fraud and illegality, the
decree cannot stand the scrutiny of law and has to be necessarily set aside as
nullity. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has
relied on the following decisions:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
1.Kiran Singh and others Vs. Chaman Paswan and others,
(1954) 1 SCC 710.
2.Shabbir Ahmed Vs. Additional District Judge and others,
(2011) SCC Online All 2017.
3.Asma Lateef Vs. Shabeer Ahmed, (2024) 4 SCC 696.
4.Odisha State Financial Corporation Vs. Vigyan
Chemical Industries and others, (2025) 5 MLJ 253.
5.Muthalammal and another Vs. K.P.Natarajan and
another, (2020) 7 MLJ 717.
6.K.P.Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal, SLP(C).No.2492 of
2021.
7.Ayyasamy Vs. Shanmugam, (2023) 6 MLJ 164.
8.R.Rasappan Vs. Rajalakshmi, 2025 SCC Online Mad
4068.
9.P.Sureshkumar Vs. Dhandapani, CRP.No.3801 of 2025.
10.Duraisamy Vs. Narayanasamy, CRP.No.1008 of 2025.
11.Kallathil Sreedharan and another Vs. Komath Pandyala
Prasanna and another, (1996) 6 SCC 218.
7.Per contra, Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents 2 to 5 would invite my attention to the fact that the
petitioners had attempted to set aside the ex-parte decre passed in the suit, along
with an application to condone the delay. The condone delay application came
to be dismissed by the trial Court, after contest and due enquiry and the said
order was also unsuccessfully challenged before this Court. The petitioner has
also moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP.Diary No.22698 of 2022 and the
same also came to be dismissed on 17.07.2023.
8.It is also the contention of Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel that
one Raman S/o. Beeman, brother of Panjalai had filed an application under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
Section 47 of CPC, questioning the executablity of the decree, where the very
same contentions taken in the present revision petition were taken. However, the
trial Court dismissed the said application, which has admittedly become final
and therefore, he would contend that the said order would clearly operate as res
judicata as against the revision petitioners as well. The learned Senior Counsel
would further state that the withdrawal of the suit for bare injunction was only
after getting liberty to file a proper and substantial suit for the relief of specific
performance and once the Court has granted permission, it is not open to the
petitioners to contend that the suit filed for specific performance is illegal and
the petitioners cannot fall back on the plaint averments made in the earlier suit.
9.It is also the contention of Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel that
the decree has stood valid for 22 years and the attempts to have it set aside by
filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, were admittedly
unsuccessful and no attempt has been made to prefer an appeal under Section 96
of CPC. It is therefore the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that having
failed in the earlier attempts, it is not open to the petitioners to straight away
approach this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India and seek for
setting aside the decree passed in the suit, that too belatedly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
10.Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel would further state that at
least in 2013, the petitioners were aware of the decree and in such
circumstances, there is absolutely no reason assigned for the long silence,
especially more than 12 years for seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree and it
is not open to the petitioners to invoke the supervisory and extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court, in order to set aside an ex-parte decree, alleging fraud
and illegality, when the petitioners have clearly slept over their rights, in not
approaching the competent Courts diligently and in time. The learned Senior
Counsel would therefore prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
11.In reply, Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that in so far as the challenge made by the petitioners in
SLP.Diary No.22698 of 2022, the papers were not refiled, after defects were
pointed out by the Registry of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, it may
be proper to put the said proceedings taken before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
against the petitioners, because, according to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the factum of not refiling the SLP papers would not technically
amount to dismissal of the SLP, resulting in merger of the order passed by the
High Court with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
12.It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in so
far as the share of the minors being brought into the suit for specific
performance, in the absence of the agreement mentioning anything about their
share in the suit property, the decree was clearly a nullity. He also contends that
when fraud is established, the delay cannot be put against the revision
petitioners. He would therefore reiterate his submissions that the Civil Revision
Petition deserves to be allowed.
13.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents. I have gone through the records filed by way of typed set of
papers, as well as the decisions on which reliance has been placed on by the
learned counsel for the parties.
14.It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent, Sagadhevan filed a suit for
specific performance in O.S.No.72 of 1994. An ex-parte decree came to be
passed on 06.03.2003. Admittedly, an application was filed by the petitioners to
condone the delay of 4915 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte
decree. The said application came to be dismissed by the trial Court by order
dated 29.11.2019 in I.A.No.713 of 2018. The said order was challenged before
this Court in CRP.PD.No.3047 of 2021 and this Court, by order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
05.01.2022, dismissed the revision petition, finding that the petitioners have not
established sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
15.Admittedly, the petitioners challenge the said order before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court by preferring SLP(D).No.22698 of 2022. Admittedly, the said
SLP was not followed up and papers have not been represented by the
petitioners. Without going to the question of whether it amounts to a dismissal
order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or not, the fact remains that with
the non refiling of the SLP papers, the order passed this Court in CRP.No.3047
of 2023 has become final. Therefore, the avenue opened to the petitioners to
seek setting aside of the ex-parte decree met a dead end.
16.There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners did
not even exercise their right to challenge the said ex-parte decree, by invoking
the provisions of Section 96 of CPC. In view of the above, the decree has
become final. In the execution proceedings, the 4th respondent herein, son of the
4th defendant in the suit, late Beeman filed an application, questioning the
executability of the decree, by invoking Section 47 of CPC. The said application
was contested in REA.No.27 of 2013 and by order dated 24.08.2021, the
Section 47 application came to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
17.Admittedly, the said order was not taken up on appeal and the order
has become final. One of the sisters of the said Raman, by name Panjalai, the 5 th
respondent herein independently filed an application under Section 47 of CPC
in REA.No.3 of 2024. The said application in REA.No.3 of 2024 was also
dismissed by order dated 24.04.2024 and her belated attempt to challenge the
dismissal of the application in CMP.No.32251 of 2025 was also heard by me
and in and by a separate order, I have found that no sufficient cause has been
made out and consequently, the application to condone the delay in filing the
revision has been dismissed. In effect, the order passed in the Section 47
application has therefore become final. In view of the above, there are now two
sets of Section 47 applications, which have been dismissed and have become
final.
18.Now an attempt has been made by the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit to
set aside the ex-parte decree passed by the trial Court, by invoking Article 227
of the Constitution of India. The primordial grounds on which the ex-parte
decree is sought to be set aside directly invoking Article 227 of Constitution of
India are that once the respondents have played fraud upon the Court by (i)
suppressing the factum of the agreement being entered into by the plaintiff only
with the 1st defendant and not with the minors; (ii) suppressing the plaint filed in
the suit for permanent injunction, despite being called upon to file the same by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
the trial Court, while numbering the suit for specific performance; and (iii)
suppressing the compromise in the suit in competent civil proceedings in and
whereby the property was declared to be the property of the 4 th respondent,
Beeman and the illegality, according to the petitioners, is that the decree has
been passed for specific performance of share of the minors, when the minors
were not even parties to the suit sale agreement and (iv) the decree has been
passed in violation of mandate of Section 20(4) of CPC and lastly, being a suit
for specific performance, the trial Court has not given any findings with regard
to the conduct of the plaintiff, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to be
entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance.
19.Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioners would also
bring to my notice that in the suit, there has also been no order appointing a
guardian and though an application for the same had been filed, the decision of
this Court in K.P.Natarajan’s case, referred herein supra is relied on for this
purpose. In fact, the order this Court came to be confirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP.(C).2492 of 2021 as well. In so far as the facts are
concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners have
admittedly suffered an ex-parte decree and their attempts to set aside the ex-
parte decree, by invoking the Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, along with Section 5 of
the Limitation Act were futile and unsuccessful. Attempts made by the other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
defendants to question the executability of decree, by invoking Section 47 of
CPC have also been unsuccessful. In this backdrop, it is to be seen whether the
petitioners are entitled to straight away approach this Court under Article 227 of
Constitution of India and seek to set aside the decree passed on the grounds of
fraud and illegality.
20.The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Asma Lateef’s case, referred herein
supra, held that an unreasoned judgment, not revealing any adjudication of the
rights of parties is a nullity in law and referring to the definition of ‘decree’
under Section 2(2) of CPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the decree
should reveal an adjudication leading to determination of the rights of the
parties in relation to any of the matters in controversy in the suit and if there is
no adjudication or determination so as to conform to the requirements of the
decree within the meaning of Section 2(2), the decree is not a decree in the eye
of law and it would be open to objection in an application under Section 47 of
CPC.
21.In Odisha State Financial Corporation’s case, referred herein supra,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to the doctrine of sub silentio, held that
judgment is an authority only for what it decides and when the judgment of the
Court is silent on questions of law either raised earlier but not decided, or raised
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
in the subsequent proceedings, it is permissible for constitutional Courts to
decide such questions of law independently and the earlier judgment cannot be
cited as a binding precedent or being conclusive. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
further held that a decree passed without jurisdiction would be null and void and
referring to Section 2(9) of CPC, defining a judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that in order for a judgment to be valid, it must satisfy the
requirements under Order XX Rule 4(2) of CPC and if the issues of
maintainability is raised, or if the facts as pleaded by themselves create a cloud
over, the jurisdiction of the Court or the maintainability of the proceedings, the
same will have to be addressed, failing which the judgment will be
unsustainable and a nullity.
22.In Sureshkumar’s case, referred herein supra, I had an occasion to deal
with the violation of mandate of Order XX Rule 4 of CPC and permissibility of
going into the said question in an application for condonation of delay.
Following the ratio laid down by this Court. R.Rasappan’s case, I held that the
question of violation of the mandate of Order XX Rule 4 CPC cannot be gone
into at the stage of condonation of delay. In Subbathal’s case, which arose under
orders passed in applications under Order XXI Rule 101 of CPC and Section 47
of CPC, which also arose in a suit of specific performance, I held that the trial
Court not applying its mind with regard to readiness and willingness as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
contemplated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, and the decision
rendered in a summary manner, was exfacie illegal and would consequently be
inexecutable and I proceeded to allow the Section 47 application.
23.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the question of a
judgment violating the mandate of Order XX Rule 4(2) of CPC can be called in
question. However, the timing of the challenge or questioning the judgment
assumes significance in all cases and scenarios. In Subbathal’s case, the revision
itself arose only out of proceedings under Section 47 of CPC and there is no
question of any delay in approaching the Court.
24.Similarly, in Sureshkumar’s case as well, I had only held that the
question of issue of whether the decree conforms to the mandate of Order XX
Rule 4(2) of CPC cannot be gone into at the stage of condonation of delay. I had
followed the ratio laid down by this Court in R.Rasappan’s case in this regard.
In the facts of the present case, the petitioners have not filed an application
under Section 47 of CPC. They have also not challenged the decree by way of
preferring a first appeal under Section 96 of CPC. Their attempts to set aside the
ex-parte decree, along with an application to condone an inordinate delay of
4915 days was dismissed by the trial Court and the said order came to be
confirmed by this Court in revision. As against the order of this Court, no doubt,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
an attempt was made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the
petitioners have not pursued the challenge and admittedly even according to the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the SLP papers were found to be defective
by the Registry of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter, the petitioners
have not refiled the papers.
25.It therefore puts a full stop to all the attempts made by the petitioners
to set aside the ex-parte decree. The petitioners were equally aware of the
applications filed under Section 47 of CPC by the other defendants, legal
representatives of Beeman and the same being dismissed. The petitioners
therefore have exhausted their rights to challenge the ex-parte decree up to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, they have now come up with the present
revision petition to set aside the ex-parte decree on the ground that the decree is
a nullity and the respondents have played fraud upon the Court and the entire
process is illegal. No doubt fraud vitiates all actions and at the same time, the
parties cannot sleep over their rights for all times to come and at their whims
and fancies, pick and choose remedies that are available to them.
26.As rightly contended by Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel at
least in 2018, the petitioners were aware of the ex-parte decree. They did not
chose to challenge the decree by way of first appeal under Section 96 of CPC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
and when the execution petition was filed as well, they did not chose to question
the executibility of the decree. Instead, they only attempted to set aside the ex-
parte decree, along with an application for condonation of delay. Therefore,
having failed in such attempts to set aside the ex-parte decree, the petitioners
cannot belatedly approach this Court directly invoking Article 227 of
Constitution of India, after lapse of 12 years from the date of filing of the EP.
27.In Rasappan’s case, referred herein supra, this Court held that if non-
speaking ex-parte judgments are allowed to set aside by invoking Article 227 of
Constitution of India, after several years, it will open the pandora’s box.Though
it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that what weighed in
the mind of the Court was that the decree had already been executed and
possession had also been handed over and in such circumstances, the belated
challenge should not have been entertained, I am unable to countenance the said
submissions in this regard. The judgment debtors who have suffered a decree
whether on merits or be it an ex-parte judgment, cannot take advantage of the
loopholes of the law and thwart the execution proceedings by taking one step
after the other, to somehow or the other prevent the decree holder from enjoying
the fruits of the decree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
28.The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India. There is no dispute with regard to the position that there is
no time limit for preferring a revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
At the same time, a litigant who seeks relief, that too invoking the extraordinary
powers and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India,
has to approach the Court within a reasonable time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Bithika Mazumdar and another vs. Sagar Pal and others, reported in (2017)
2 SCC 748, has held as follows:
“4.It is an admitted position in law that no limitation is
prescribed for filing application under Article 227 of the
Constitution. Of course, the petitioner who files such a petition
is supposed to file the same without unreasonable delay and if
there is a delay that should be duly and satisfactorily explained.
In the facts of the present case, we find that the High Court has
dismissed the said petition by observing that though there is no
statutory period of limitation prescribed, such a petition should
be filed within a period of limitation as prescribed for
applications under Sections 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This approach of the High Court cannot be countenanced. As
mentioned above, in the absence of any limitation period, if the
petition is filed with some delay but at the same time, the
petitioner gives satisfactory explanation thereof, the petition
should be entertained on merits.”
29.There is absolutely no explanation on the side of the petitioners as to
why they have approached this Court belatedly. In any event, they have already
made an attempt to set aside the ex-parte decree by filing an application in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
2018, the said attempt was unsuccessful and the said order has also become
final. Further, the execution petition itself has been filed in the year 2013 and
therefore, there is not even a whisper as to why the petitioners kept quite for
more than 12 years, before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. One another factor that cannot be
forgotten or brushed aside lightly is that though the primordial contentions of
Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioners that the minors’
interest has not been protected or addressed by the trial Court, the fact remains
that the minors admittedly attained the age of majority even in 1993 and 1997
years and therefore, nothing prevented the minors to have challenged the decree
passed against them within the period of three years which is provided under the
law of limitation. This exercise has also not been done by the petitioners.
Therefore, it is a clear case where the petitioners are only attempting to delay
and defeat the entitlement of the decree holder to enjoy the fruits of the decree.
30.In so far as Asma Lateef’s case, that was a case where the Hon’ble
Supreme Court found that the Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief
sought for and the jurisdiction had been erroneously assumed by the Court and
exercised. In such view of the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such
a decree was inexecutable in the eyes of law. In fact, there is no quarrel with
regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that any breach or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
violation of provisions of Order XX Rule 4(2) of CPC r/w Section 2(2) or 2(9)
of CPC would be ultra vires and consequently inexecutable. In fact, even in the
said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has only held that the said decree can
be questioned under Section 47 of CPC. Admittedly, the petitioners have not
chosen that path. On the contrary, two other defendants who invoked Section 47
of CPC were unsuccessful in setting the decree at naught.
31.In Odisha State Financial Corporation’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that a judgment must satisfy the requirement under Order XX Rule 4
of CPC and when there is a cloud over jurisdiction of the Court or
maintainability of the proceedings, the same will have to be addressed and in
such circumstances, failure to render the judgment unsustainable and nullity in
the eye of law. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners did not appear and
contest the suit diligently and they allowed an ex-parte decree to be passed. The
attempt to set aside the ex-parte decree as already stated herein above, at the risk
of repetition, was unsuccessful and therefore, there was no issue regarding
maintainability or jurisdiction of the suit for the trial Court to have addressed
such issues. In the light of the above, these decisions cannot be pressed into
service in favour of the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
32.Even as regards the doctrine of sub silentio, I do not see how the same
would come to the rescue of the revision petitioners. On the facts of the said
case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that an earlier judgment which had not
been decided an issue, but had disposed of the matter or some other issue, then
in such eventuality, it is open to the constitutional Courts to decide the questions
that were not decided in the earlier proceedings. This ratio is relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioners to drive home the point that the dismissal of
the revision petition arising out of the Section 5 application did not go into the
merits of the case, but only dealt with the limited aspect of whether the
petitioners were able to show sufficient cause or not. It is therefore contended
by the learned counsel for the petitioners that applying the doctrine of sub
silentio, the order passed by this Court in CRP.PD.No.3047 of 2021 cannot be
put against the revision petitioners. I am unable to countenance the said
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
33.The doctrine of sub silentio applies to the rule or principle where the
Court has bye-passed or has been silent on a particular point of law which has
not been applied to the facts of the present case before it, but the Court has
proceeded to decide the issue on other questions of law or fact. The conduct of
the petitioners has to be necessarily taken into consideration while giving them
the benefit of the doctrine of sub silentio. As already found, even in 2013, when
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
the execution petition was filed, the petitioners became aware of the ex-parte
decree and no steps were taken by them until 2018, when the petitioners
attempted to have a delay of more than 4900 days condoned, in filing the
application to set aside the ex-parte decree and the said application was
dismissed and the order was upheld by this Court in the revision petition. After
having attempted to set aside the ex-parte decree in a manner known to law, the
petitioners cannot thereafter fall back and invoke Article 227 of Constitution of
India. The delay in approaching this Court, especially after having come to
know of the ex-parte decree way back in 2013 at least, the petitioners are
certainly not entitled to audience and this Court cannot be compelled to invoke
the extraordinary powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside
the ex-parte decree passed way back in 2013. For all the above reasons, I do not
find any merit in the revision.
34.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.02.2026
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
P.B.BALAJI.J,
ata
To
The Sub-Court, Dharmapuri.
Pre-delivery judgment made in
20.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:27 pm )
