[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Shridevi vs Vijaya on 20 February, 2026
C.M.A.(MD)No.1578 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
C.M.A.(MD)No.1578 of 2025
Shridevi,
W/o. Late. Rajviswanathan,
E F 3, Vajra Apartments,
Bye Pass Road,
Madurai - 16. ... Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Vijaya,
W/o. Shankaran,
No.40, Rajaji 9th Street,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai.
2. Selvamurugamani,
S/o. Shankaran,
No.40, Rajaji 9th Street,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai.
3. Sugunapriya,
D/o. Shankaran,
No.40, Rajaji 9th Street,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai. ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 43 Rule 1(c) of
CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the
IV Additional District Judge, Madurai in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.172 of
2020, dated 04.12.2025.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 05:17:57 pm )
C.M.A.(MD)No.1578 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.M.S.Senthil Kumar
for M/s.Sree Kaamaakshi Law Associate
For R2 : Mr.K.Khoushik Nivas
For R1 & R3 : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the fair and decreetal
order, dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge,
Madurai in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.172 of 2020.
2. The brief facts of the case:
The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.172 of 2020 on the file of the
IV Additional District Court, Madurai. The suit was dismissed for default on
28.08.2025. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the petition in I.A.No.2 of 2025
in O.S.No.172 of 2020 under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC to restore the suit.
The respondents/defendants objected for restoration. After hearing both, the
Trial Court has dismissed the petition in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.172 of
2020 on 04.12.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the
appellant/plaintiff moved this Court by way of this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 05:17:57 pm )
3. The second respondent appeared through counsel. The respondents
1 and 3 did not appear in spite of notice served and their names have also
been printed in the cause list.
4. Heard both side and perused the records in this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff has argued
that the appellant/petitioner filed a suit for partition against the
respondents/defendants and the appellant/plaintiff obtained direction from
this Court for early disposal of the suit. The appellant/plaintiff filed a proof
affidavit on 31.07.2025 and she was cross examined on 13.08.2025. Then, the
suit was posted for further evidence to 28.08.2025, on which date the
appellant/plaintiff and her counsel were unable to attend the Court, hence, the
suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. The trial Court ought to have given
sufficient opportunity to the appellant/plaintiff. The trial Court ought to have
closed the evidence in case the appellant/plaintiff is not ready. The trial Court
ought to have granted further time instead of dismissing the suit for default.
The trial Court has not considered the fact that the period for disposal of the
suit is granted till 30.12.2025 by the High Court. The appellant/plaintiff is
ready to complete the evidences within one month. Moreover, the trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 05:17:57 pm )
has failed to see that the appellant/plaintiff filed the restoration petition on
02.09.2025 within four days to restore the suit, which was dismissed for
default on 28.08.2025.
6. The learned counsel for the second respondent filed a counter and
objected that the appellant/petitioner has already left the suit for default on
07.02.2023. After restoration, the appellant/plaintiff has not cooperated for
conducting the trial in spite of direction for disposal obtained by her from this
Court. The appellant/plaintiff has no valid case, so once again she left the
case for dismissed for default. The appellant/plaintiff is in habit of leaving
the suit for dismissal for default, then she chooses to file a restoration petition
with a view to drag the matter. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
may be dismissed.
7. On hearing both and on perusal of records, it is clear that the
appellant/petitioner has filed the suit for partition against the respondents.
The appellant/plaintiff admits that the direction for disposal of the suit within
31.12.2025 has been issued by this court in C.R.P(MD)No.432 of 2025.
The appellant/plaintiff states that proof affidavit of PW.1 was filed on
31.07.2025, P.W.1 was cross examined 13.08.2025. When the case was
posted to 28.08.2025 for the plaintiff’s side further evidence, the suit was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 05:17:57 pm )
dismissed for non-prosecution. It is settled proposition that sufficient
opportunity has to be given to litigants to put forth their respective cases for
disposal on merits. For non-appearance on single hearing, the trial Court has
dismissed the suit for non-prosecution without giving opportunity, which is
not sustainable in law.
8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff, the trial Court ought to have closed the evidence of the
plaintiff's side if the appellant/plaintiff and her counsel were not ready for
further evidence when the time for disposal of the suit was granted till
31.12.2025. Eventhough the learned respondents’ counsel brought to notice
about the earlier dismissal for default, the suit is filed for partition, in which
all parties are deemed to be plaintiffs. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the
petition to restore the suit within 4 days from the date of dismissal for default.
Now, the appellant/plaintiff is ready to complete her evidences within one
month. The respondents will not be prejudiced in case of restoration, because
they have sufficient opportunity to put forth their case. Therefore, this Court
is of the opinion that the appellant/plaintiff has to be given an opportunity to
conduct her suit. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the delay is
to be condoned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 05:17:57 pm )
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
The fair and decreetal order passed by the learned IV Additional District
Judge, Madurai in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.172 of 2020, dated 04.12.2025
is setaside. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai is directed to
restore the suit in O.S.No.172 of 2020 and post the matter for further
plaintiff's side evidence and dispose of the suit within a period of five months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording sufficient
opportunities to both parties. No costs.
20.02.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
VSD
Note: Issue Order Copy on 20.02.2026
To
1.The IV Additional District Judge,
Madurai
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 05:17:57 pm )
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Judgment made in
20.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 05:17:57 pm )
