CRP/5719/2026 of Muthu Vs Chinnasamy on 16 October 2026

ORDER

The defendant in O.S.No.374 of 2017 is the revision petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Saravanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent.

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )

3. The suit in O.S.No.374 of 2017 was filed before the learned Sub-Judge, Kangeyam, Tiruppur and came to be decreed ex-parte. An application was filed in IA.No.1 of 2024 by the revision petitioner, seeking condonation of a delay of 1569 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree in the said suit.The trial Court, on enquiry, dismissed the application finding that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Mr.N.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court has failed to see that the petitioner had, in fact, made out sufficient cause and explained the delay and had in fact even mechanically decreed the suit, without assessing the merits of the claim of the plaintiff, in a judicious manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the respondent is a money lender who had only taken the agreement as security for the money lent to the petitioner and had fraudulently instituted a suit for specific performance to knock away the valuable immovable property of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore states that the Court should have taken a liberal view and given an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits. He further states that originally the suit was filed before the Sub-Court, Tirupur and subsequently, it was transferred to the Sub-Court,

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )

Kangeyam and the petitioner was in dark about the proceedings which resulted in the ex- partee decree. He would therefore state that there is no willful inaction or deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner, disentitling him to exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. Per contra, Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent would state that the petitioner was well aware of the transfer of the suit to the Sub-Court, Kangeyam and in fact, he was represented by a counsel, even after the transfer of the suit and despite several opportunities given for filing a written statement, the petitioner did not choose to file a written statement, which resulted in the ex-partee decree being passed. He would also point out that even along with the application to condone delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-partee decree, the petitioner has not filed his written statement. He would therefore state that the Trial Court has rightly refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and the said order does not require any interference in revision.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )

7. The suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent in O.S.No.374 of 2017. The suit was originally filed before the Sub-Court, Tiruppur, where the petitioner entered appearance tthrough counsel. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the file of Sub-Court, Kangeyam, where also the petitioner was represented by a counsel. However, the petitioner did not choose to file his defence in time, despite several opportunities being granted by the Trial Court. Consequently, the petitioner was set ex- partee and the respondent was called upon to deposit the balance sale consideration and the suit came to the decreed and subsequently, EP has also been filed for recovery of possession from the revision petitioner.

8. The reasons assigned by the petitioner in support of the condone delay application have been found to be false and the Trial Court has rendered categorical findings that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause, entitling him to discretionary remedy under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In fact, the witnesses examined on the side of the petitioner, three in number, have also not been able to show that the petitioner was entitled to discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The oral and documentary evidence have also been discussed objectively by the Trial Court and in fact, in rightly coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out any sufficient cause. I do not see any grounds arising for interference with the said well considered order of the Trial Court in exercise of revisional powers.

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )

9. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 16.10.2026 Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata To The Sub Judge, Kengeyam, Tiruppur.

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )

P.B.BALAJI.

J, ata Pre-delivery order made in CRP.No.5719 of 2026 16.10.2026

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )