Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

V.M.Kaliyaperumal vs The Tahsildar
2026 Latest Caselaw 323 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 323 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 January, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

V.M.Kaliyaperumal vs The Tahsildar on 21 January, 2026

                                                                               CRP Nos.3652 and 3656 of 2025


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED: 21.01.2026
                                                                CORAM
                                    THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

                                  CRP No.3652 and 3656 of 2025 and CMP No.19641 of 2025


                     V.M.Kaliyaperumal                                      ... Petitioner in both the revisions
                                                                    Vs.

                     1. The Tahsildar,
                        Mannargudi Taluk Office,
                        Mannargudi, Tiruvarur District.

                     2. The District Collector,
                        Tiruvarur District, Vilalamal,
                        O/o The District Collector,
                        Tiruvarur and District                        …. Respondents in both the revisions


                     Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
                     Code against the order and decree made in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in
                     O.S.No.102 of 2012 on the file of Subordinate Court, Mannargudi District
                     dated 21.07.2025.

                                      For Petitioner         : Mr.K.A.Ravindran

                                      For Respondents : Mr.A.Anandan
                                                        Govt.Advocate



                     1/6




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                  ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:22:23 pm )
                                                                                 CRP Nos.3652 and 3656 of 2025

                                                        COMMON ORDER

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.102 of 2012 on the

file of Subordinate Court, Mannargudi. The suit was filed for the relief of

permanent injunction to restrain the respondents herein, as defendants, from

interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

property, except by due process of law. The said suit came to be decreed

exparte by the trial court. However, an application came to be filed by the

respondents, to set aside the exparte decree, together with an application to

condone the delay of 3940 days. The said applications have been allowed by

the trial Court, directing cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the revision

petitioner. Challenging the said orders, the present revisions have been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would invite my

attention to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, where the

respondents were very much represented by a counsel and only for non-

filing of written statement they were set exparte and therefore, it was not

open to the respondents to claim that they had no knowledge of the exparte

decree. He would further state that the delay has not been satisfactorily

explained and despite the said fact, the trial court, on erroneous

consideration, has proceeded to condone the delay. Therefore, he would pray

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:22:23 pm ) CRP Nos.3652 and 3656 of 2025

for the revision being allowed.

3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate brings to my notice that

the petitioner himself has filed a suit in O.S.No.114 of 2025, which is

pending before District Munsif Court, Mannargudi and he would further

state that the respondents were constrained to take out an application to

condone the delay as well as to set aside the exparte decree only because the

suit property is Sarkar Poramboke Road over which the plaintiff cannot

claim any right whatsoever. He would therefore state that it is only in the

interest of protecting Government property, the trial court has allowed the

applications and the order does not call for any interference.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is not in dispute that in the suit filed by the petitioner in

O.S.No.102 of 2012, the relief sought for the petitioner was only for a

permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, respondents herein not to

interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

property, except by due process of law. In the said suit, the respondents have

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:22:23 pm ) CRP Nos.3652 and 3656 of 2025

admittedly entered appearance and have not chosen to file any written

statement. The trial Court has proceeded to pass exparte judgment in the

presence of the learned counsel for the respondents and thereafter, no steps

have been taken by the respondents to have the exparte decree set aside.

6. On the contrary, after a lapse of 11 years, applications have been

filed to set aside the exparte decree, along with an application to condone the

delay of 3940 days. The trial court, without seeing whether sufficient cause

has been made out or satisfactory reasons have been assigned, has gone into

the merits of the contentions of the respondents that the lands are Sarkar

Poramboke Roads and has thought it necessary to afford an opportunity to

the respondents to contest the suit on merits.

7. The decree granted is admittedly one which restrains the

respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and

enjoyment, except by due process of law. The said decree will not come in

the way of the respondents taking action in accordance with law. According

to the respondents, the lands are Sarkar Poramboke Road portion. In any

event, today, there is a suit pending in O.S.No.114 of 2025 on the file of

District Munsif Court, Mannargudi and the respondents have been arrayed as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:22:23 pm ) CRP Nos.3652 and 3656 of 2025

defendants . The contentious issues can be very well decided in O.S.No.114

of 2025.

8. In the light of the above, it would suffice to allow these revision

petitions, setting aside the order condoning the delay of 3940 days since the

issues can be gone into O.S.No.114 of 2025 and it is needless to state that

subject to the outcome of O.S.No.114 of 2025, the respondents are always at

liberty to take action against the revision petitioner. The exparte decree will

not come in the way of the respondents.

9. With the above observations, both the civil revision petitions are

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

21.01.2026

Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order Index : Yes / No sr

P.B.BALAJI.,J

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:22:23 pm ) CRP Nos.3652 and 3656 of 2025

sr

To

1. The Subordinate Court, Mananrgudi

2. The District Munsif Court, Mannargudi

CRP Nos.3652 and 3656 of 2025

21.01.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:22:23 pm )

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter