Madras High Court
CRP/6671/2026 of B.P.Murugesh Vs A.Muthusamy on 16 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6671 of 2026 and
CMP No.28692 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012231552026}
B.P.Murugesh,
S/o.Palanisamy Gounder
Kongalli Road, Thalavadi firka,
Sathyamangalayam TK, Erode
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
A.Muthusamy, S/o.Arthanari Gounder
susaiapuram, Mallankuli Village,
Thalavadi Firka, Erode.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the order passed in IA.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.37 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sathyamangalam, dated 25.06.2026.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. M.Gokul Sriram
for Ms. L.Meenakshi
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 4131 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.37 of 2011.
2. The respondent herein/ plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on the mortgage deed. In the suit, exparte preliminary decree was passed against the petitioner on 08.11.2011 and the petitioner filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with a petition to condone delay of 4131 days in filing the set aside petition. The above petitions were filed on 28.02.2024. The Trial Court dismissed the condone delay petition and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was prevented from illness and extraordinary circumstances at the relevant point of time and therefore, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits.
4. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition would indicate that the petitioner pleaded extraordinary circumstances for his failure to meet his counsel. It was also pleaded that the petitioner’s parents were sick persons and he was taking care of them and hence, he could not meet his counsel to give suitable instructions to file written statement. The averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition is very vague and based on the said vague allegations, the court cannot adopt a liberal approach in condoning such inordinate delay of 4131 days.
5. It is seen from the impugned order that subsequent to the exparte preliminary decree, final decree was passed and the petitioner also appeared in the execution proceedings that was initiated in the year 2023. In the impugned order, it was specifically noted by the Executing Court that the petitioner had entered appearance in the execution proceedings on 27.09.2023. However, instant applications have been filed only on 28.02.2024. Therefore, the petitioner miserably failed to explain such inordinate delay in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree and hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court.
6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The Subordinate Judge, Sathyamangalam.
S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 6671 of 2026 16.10.2026