CRP/5825/2026 of Poongodi Vs Velusamy on 16 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order dated 22.08.2026 passed in unnumbered I.A.Sr.No.4554 of 2026 in O.S.No.355 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, refusing to entertain the application filed by the petitioner/seventh defendant to set aside the ex parte order dated 27.08.2022.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.355 of 2020 before the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, seeking for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The defendants did not contest the case and they were set ex parte and ultimately, the suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 15.06.2023. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the first respondent/plaintiff filed A.S.No.34 of 2024 before the I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. The appellate Court, by judgment and decree dated 30.06.2025, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the file of the trial Court in the following terms: “The Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Decree and Judgment passed in OS.No:355/2020 on 15.3.2023 by the IInd Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, and remanding the matter back to the IInd Additional District Munsif Court, Erode with direction to readmit the suit in same number, further the appellant side directed to take necessary steps to amend the plaint by adding concern government authorities comes under the head of State of Tamil Nadu in respect of the core issue of the matter and amendment process to be done within two weeks and afford a fair opportunities to both sides inclusive of plaintiff and D1 to D7 along with the government authorities to adduce evidence along with the documents in crux of the matter and dispose the suit afresh. The Trial court shall dispose of the case within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The parties are directed to bear their own cost.”

4. After the suit was remanded back to the file of the trial Court, on 12.08.2025, the trial Court found that the Court notice was served on defendants 2, 4 to 7 and there was no appearance on their side and hence, they were set ex pare and while doing so, the Court below took into consideration the fact that they were set ex parte even in the earlier round of litigation. The petitioner herein is the seventh defendant.

5. The evidence on the side of the first respondent/plaintiff was recorded and documents were marked and the Court below reserved the suit for passing judgment. At this stage, the interlocutory application came to be filed by the petitioner/seventh defendant to set aside the ex parte order dated 27.08.2022.

6. The Court below refused to entertain this application considering the conduct of the petitioner/seventh defendant and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner/seventh defendant had received the notice on 30.07.2025 and was set ex parte in the proceedings dated 12.08.2025 whereas the application to set aside the ex parte order was filed only during the month of August’2026 when the Court below had reserved the suit for passing final judgment. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

7. The main ground urged on the side of the petitioner/seventh defendant is that the Court below has erroneously come to the conclusion that the petitioner/seventh defendant was already set ex parte on 27.08.2022 and therefore, when the matter came up on 12.08.2025, the same was recorded and the Court below proceeded further with the suit. It is submitted that the Court below ought not to have taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner/seventh defendant was set ex parte in the year 2022 since when the appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2024 was disposed of, the appellate Court had specifically directed that fair opportunity must be given to the first respondent/plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 and therefore, the fact that the petitioner/second defendant was set ex parte on 27.08.2022 automatically gets wiped off and what has to be taken into consideration is the service of summons after the remand and the conduct of the petitioner/seventh defendant thereafter.

8. It is further contended that the first respondent/plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and the petitioner/seventh defendant is the only effectively contesting defendant since the property has been sold in his favour by defendants 2 to 6, who are the original owners and they are no longer interested in contesting the case. Hence, a request was made to give an opportunity to the petitioner/seventh defendant.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that the petitioner/seventh defendant has exhibited a callous conduct right through. It is submitted that even in the earlier round, the petitioner/seventh defendant did not choose to contest the case and was set ex parte on 27.08.2022. Even after remand, summon was served on the petitioner/seventh defendant and the petitioner/seventh defendant did not choose to contest the case and right from 12.08.2025 till August’2026 when the trial Court reserved the suit for pronouncing judgment, no steps were taken by the petitioner/seventh defendant to file any application to set aside the ex parte order. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner/seventh defendant has intentionally kept quite and when the trial Court was about to pass a judgment, the present application was filed and the trial Court has rightly rejected the same considering the conduct of the petitioner as well as taking note of the fact that the appellate Court has fixed a time frame for the disposal of the suit.

10. As contended by learned counsel for petitioner/seventh defendant the fact that the petitioner/seventh defendant was set ex parte even during the earlier round of litigation on 27.08.2022 is not relevant for the simple reason that the suit came to be dismissed and in the appeal, the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the file of the trial Court with a specific direction that the first respondent/plaintiff and defendants 1 and 7 must be given an opportunity to contest the suit. Therefore, what is relevant is to take note of the happenings after the remand of the suit to the trial Court.

11. The proceedings dated 12.08.2025 shows that notice was served on petitioner/seventh defendant and for some reason, the petitioner/seventh defendant did not choose to engage a counsel nor was he present before the Court. Therefore, the proceedings dated 12.08.2025 must be taken to be date on which the petitioner/seventh defendant was actually set ex parte in this case. Having held so, this Court must see the conduct of this petitioner/seventh defendant thereafter.

12. As rightly contended by learned counsel for first respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/seventh defendant did not move his little finger till August’2026. In the mean time, the trial Court had recorded the evidence on the side of first respondent/plaintiff and the documents were marked and the suit was at the stage of pronouncing final judgment. The trial Court was also under time constraint to complete the suit since the appellate Court had fixed a time frame for the completion of the suit. This conduct on the part of the petitioner/seventh defendant is certainly questionable and there is no satisfactory answer forthcoming from the petitioner/seventh defendant.

13. Under such circumstances, this Court is taking into consideration the fact that in the earlier round, the suit came to be dismissed and later, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the file of the trial Court. This Court is also taking into consideration the fact that a substantive relief has been sought for by the first respondent/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction and the petitioner/seventh defendant, being the purchaser of the property, will loose the property if he does not contest this suit. Therefore, one chance can be given to the petitioner/seventh defendant by putting him on terms. It is brought to the notice of this Court that along with the application to set aside the ex parte order, written statement has also been filed by the petitioner/seventh defendant.

14. In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the petitioner/seventh defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as cost to the account of O.S.No.355 of 2020 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Erode, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the same. If this direction is complied with, the Court below shall assign a number to the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner/seventh defendant to set aside the ex parte order and allow the same and take the written statement filed by the petitioner/seventh defendant on file. Thereafter, the Court below shall complete the trial and the proceedings in O.S.No.355 of 2020 and pass a final judgment within a period of three (3) months thereafter. Accordingly, the docket order dated 22.08.2026 passed in unnumbered I.A.Sr.No.4554 of 2026 in O.S.No.355 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, is set aside in the above terms. It is made clear that if the cost is not deposited by the petitioner/seventh defendant within the time frame fixed by this Court, the order passed by the Court below on 22.08.2026 will stand revived. In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm

To The II Additional District Munsif, Erode.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J gm Civil Revision Petition No.5825 of 2026 16-10-2026