(Prayer in C.R.P. No. 3317 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Order and Decree made in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.306 of 2012, by the learned District Munif at Madurantakam, dated 14.08.2025.

In C.R.P. No. 3376 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Order and Decree made in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.306 of 2012, by the learned District Munif at Madurantakam, dated 09.09.2025.)

Common Order:

1. The civil revision petition in C.R.P.No.3317 of 2026 is filed to set aside the Order and Decree made in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.306 of 2012, by the learned District Munif at Madurantakam, dated 14.08.2025 and the civil revision petition in C.R.P.No.3376 of 2026 is filed to set aside the Order and Decree made in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.306 of 2012, by the learned District Munif at Madurantakam, dated 09.09.2025.

2. Heard Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

3. The petitioners herein are defendants 1 to 3 in the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and relief of permanent injunction. The case of the petitioner/ defendants is that, the defendants 1 to 3 have sold the property in favour of the fourth defendant, however a decree is now sought to be executed against the petitioners/ defendants, who are in possession of the suit property.

4. Mr. M.Aravind Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would state that, the petitioners are poor agricultural coolies and they were not aware of the consequences of the legal proceedings and the petitioners may be given a fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits and further stated that the petitioners may also be put on suitable terms to enable the petitioners to contest the suit.

5. Per contra, Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/ plaintiff would state that there is absolutely no bonafides in the request for condonation of delay of 1457 days. He would further state that the petitioners were not only set ex-parte pending the suit, even in the EP proceedings, they were served with notice on 29.03.2023 and even thereafter, no steps were taken to set aside the ex-parte decree in the suit, immediately. On the contrary, the application came to be filed only on 08.04.2024, more than one year, after having received the notice in the Execution Petition. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on either side and also gone through the order impugned in the present revision.

7. Admittedly, the delay is 1457 days. The case of the petitioners is that, they have already sold the suit property to the fourth defendant, who was contesting the suit and hence the petitioners/ defendants 1 to 3 were under the bonafide impression that the fourth defendant would be taking care of their interest as well. It is the further contention of the petitioners that they are poor agricultural coolies and therefore, they were not aware of the legal consequences in not attending to the court proceedings, which has resulted in the ex-parte decree.

8. The petitioners no doubt were set ex-parte in the suit, and the suit was proceeded on merits, at the instance of the fourth defendant, who is the purchaser from the petitioners herein. However, the fourth defendant did not choose to cross examine the P.W.1 and the Court proceeded to pass a decree on 13.03.2020. Though it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam that the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings and that there was no proper service of summons in the suit as well, admittedly, the petitioners had knowledge about the ex-parte decree atleast on 29.03.2023, when they were served notice in the execution proceedings, but no steps were taken thereafter, diligently and at the earliest, to seek setting aside of the ex-parte decree in the suit.

9. After a lapse of 13 months alone, the application came to be filed in I.A.No.04 of 2024 for condonation of delay of 1457 days. The delay beyond 13.03.2020 has not been explained at all. Absolutely, no reasons have been given as to why or what prevented the petitioners from taking out an application to set aside the ex-parte decree, atleast after they came to know about the same, when they were served with notice in the EP on 29.03.2023. The Trial Court has rightly found that no sufficient cause has been made out, for seeking condonation of inordinate delay of 1457 days. The order is a well reasoned order and I do not find any grounds warranting interference in the revision.

10. Accordingly, these civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.