[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Nagammal vs Muthumuniyammal on 21 January, 2026
C.R.P.(MD)No.903 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.903 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4149 of 2023
1.Nagammal
2.Minor Sangaralingam
3.Minor Kanagaraj
4.Karuppasamy
5.Ramar
6.Jeyabal ... Petitioners
-vs.-
Muthumuniyammal ...Respondent
(Minor petitioners 2 and 3 are represented by their mother and natural
guardian, the petitioner)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order passed in I.A.No.
2 of 2022 in O.S.No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court,
Srivilliputhur, dated 16.12.2022 by allowing this Civil Revision Petitin and to
proceed further in accordance with law.
_______________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:26:39 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)No.903 of 2023
For Petitioners :Mr.M.Mohamed Sherbudeen
For Respondent :Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan
*****
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the
impugned order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge,
Srivilliputhur, in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.4 of 2011, dated 16.12.2022.
2.Heard Mr.M.Mohamed Sherbudeen, learned Counsel for the
petitioners and Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan, learned Counsel for the respondent.
3.The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.4 of 2011 on the
file of the Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur and the petitioners are the
defendants in the suit. The said suit has been filed claiming 1/4 share in the
suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioners were set ex parte and an
ex parte judgment and decree was passed. Further, in the final decree
proceedings also, the respondents were set ex parte. Thereafter, the petitioners
have filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2022 to set aside the ex parte judgment
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:26:39 pm )
along with an application in I.A.No.2 of 2022 to condone the delay of 2453
days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application
was dismissed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, vide
impugned order, dated 16.12.2022 on the ground that the petitioners have not
given any valid reasons for the inordinate delay of 2453 days. Challenging the
same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial
Judge failed to consider the reasons assigned by the petitioners in the
application which contains sufficient cause. He further submitted that the first
petitioner is suffering from old age ailments and that there is a delay and
without properly considering the same, the trial Court has dismissed the
application to condone the delay, which is per se illegal and needs interference
of this Court.
5.The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners
have not appeared before the suit proceedings as well as before the final decree
proceedings and that after an inordinate delay of 2453 days, the petitioners
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:26:39 pm )
have filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree without giving
adequate reasons to condone the delay and the trial Court after considering the
explanations offered by the petitioners, have rightly dismissed the application
filed by the petitioners, which needs no interference and seeks dismissal of this
petition.
6.This Court considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
7.The respondent, as plaintiff, has filed a suit and in the suit, as the
revision petitioners did not appear, they were set ex parte and an ex parte
judgment and decree was passed. Even in the final decree proceedings also,
they did not appear and after an inordinate delay of 2453 days, they filed
applications to condone the delay and to set aside the ex parte judgment. In
the application filed to condone the delay of 2453 days, the only reason stated
by the petitioners is that the first petitioner is suffering with old age ailments
and that they could not appear before the Court.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:26:39 pm )
8.It is to be noted that the reasons attributed by the petitioners for the
delay of 2456 days to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside
the ex parte decree are not satisfactory and acceptable. The Court below, after
considering the reasons stated by the petitioners, has rightly dismissed the
application. This Court is also of the view that the findings rendered by the
Court below in the impugned order in rejecting the petitioners' application are
all well-founded, which deserves no interference of this Court.
9.For the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Revision Petition fails and is
accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
21.01.2026
Internet :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
cmr
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:26:39 pm )
To
The Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:26:39 pm )
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
cmr
21.01.2026
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:26:39 pm )
