logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5850 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CRP. No. 355 of 2025 & CMP. No. 2171 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Parties : Nachimuthu Versus Duraisamy
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: V. Anandhamoorthy, Advocate. For the Respondent: M/s. R. Radha Pandian, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 03-08-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Order IX Rule 13 of CPC

2. Catch Words:
- limitation
- ex parte decree
- condonation of delay
- execution
- specific performance
- interim stay

3. Summary:
The Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenges the Sub‑Court’s order dismissing an application to condone a 1543‑day delay in seeking to set aside an ex‑parte decree, pursuant to Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. The trial court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claimed medical ailment with documentary evidence and therefore did not show sufficient cause for condonation. The respondent has obtained a sale deed and execution of the decree, but possession is stayed pending the revision. The revisional court notes the lack of merit in the petition, finds no infirmity in the trial court’s decision, and upholds the dismissal of the application. Consequently, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs, and the related miscellaneous petition is closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and final order dated 06.11.2024 made in IA No. 01 of 2023 in OS No. 299 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Palladam, by allowing this CRP and thus render justice.)

1. The civil revision petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Sub Court, Palladam in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.299 of 2018.

2. In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner/defendant, seeking to condone the delay of 1543 days in filing an application, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC has been dismissed.

3. While dismissing the application, the trial Court, after giving due consideration to the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2023, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner/defendant has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 1543 days in filing an application, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

4. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that subsequent to the ex parte decree having been passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.299 of 2018, the respondent/plaintiff had filed an execution petition to execute the said decree and has also obtained a sale deed from the executing Court, in accordance with the specific performance decree obtained by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant. He would submit that the possession alone is yet to be delivered to the respondent/plaintiff in view of the interim stay granted by this Court in this civil revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate that sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner/defendant in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2023 for the delay in filing an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree obtained by the respondent/plaintiff.

6. However, as seen from the impugned order, the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his contentions in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2023 for the inordinate delay in filing an application, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. Though the petitioner/defendant has pleaded that he was suffering from jaundice for a long period of time, the petitioner/defendant has not produced any medical records before the trial Court to substantiate the said reason.

7. The trial Court, only after giving due consideration to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application, which is not supported by any documentary evidence, has rightly dismissed the petitioner's application by holding that no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner/defendant to condone the inordinate delay of 1543 days in filing an application, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant.

8. This Court also takes note of the fact that the respondent/plaintiff has already obtained a sale deed from the executing Court through a specific performance decree passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant.

9. This Court also takes note of the fact that only due to the interim stay obtained from this Court in this civil revision petition, the respondent/plaintiff has not been able to get possession of the property through an order passed by the executing court.

10. As sufficient cause has not been shown by the petitioner/ defendant to condone the inordinate delay of 1543 days in filing an application, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2023.

11. In the result, there is no merit in this civil revision petition. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal