Madras High Court
CRP/6702/2026 of S.Murugan (Deceased) 1)Kanthimathi Vs R.Ethirajan on 16 October 2026
CRP No. 6702 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6702 of 2026
CMP No. 28836 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011053322026}
S.Murugan (Deceased)
1. Kanthimathi
No.4/50, Dr.Ambedkar Street,
Palavakkam, Chennai 600 041
2. M.Karthikeyan
No.4/50, Dr.Ambedkar Street,
Palavakkam, Chennai 600 041
3. M.Kalaiselvi
No.4/50, Dr.Ambedkar Street,
Palavakkam, Chennai 600 041
...Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. R.Ethirajan
2. E.Selva Ilavarasan
3. Estate of Pattammal
Rep by Saroja,
4. Saroja
5. Kanniammal
6. Murugan
7. Vasudevan
8. Dhanapal
9. G.Shanmugam
CRP No. 6702 of 2026
10.G.Ravichandran
11.G.Loganathan
12.S.Anbarasu
Minor rep by mother and natural guardian, S.Thulasi
13.Tamil Selvi
14.R.Babu
15.R.Sankaran
16.Bank of Baroda
Alwarpet Branch,
Sir C.P.Ramaswamy Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.
(Cause title accepted vide order
dated 28.09.2026 made in
CMP No.26612 of 2026 in
CRP Sr No.78337 of 2026)
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 10.12.2025
made in I.A.No.42 of 2015 in OS No.10146 of 2010 on the file of the XVII
Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.R.Thiagarajan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.B.Vijay
for Caveator/ R1 and R2
CRP No. 6702 of 2026
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, allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2 seeking to condone the delay of 532 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decreee passed against them on condition, they shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs.
2. The first petitioner and the predecessor in interest of 2nd and 3rd petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance, declaration and injunction. The said suit was decreed exparte on 14.09.2012. The respondents 1 and 2 herein, who had been arrayed as defendants 14 and 15 in the suit, filed an application to set aside the exparte decree passed against them along with a petition to condone the delay of 532 days in filing the set aside petition. The Trial Court, by the impugned order, has allowed the condone delay petition by imposing costs. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 have not given any substantial reason explaining such delay of 532 days in filing the set aside petition and the Trial Court, without appreciating the lack of averments in the affidavit filed in support of the
CRP No. 6702 of 2026
condone delay petition, has erroneously allowed the said petition.
4. A perusal of the condone delay petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 before the Trial Court would indicate that suit summons were not served on them and only paper publication was effected. It is also stated that they acquired knowledge about the exparte decree only after receipt of notice from the counsel for the defendants 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10. In the impugned order, the Trial Court noted that suit summons sent to the respondents 1 and 2 / defendants 14 and 15 were returned with an endorsement “ No such Person” and therefore, paper publication was effected on them. In the light of the said findings rendered by the Trial Court, it is clear that in the suit, the respondents 1 and 2 herein/ defendants 14 and 15 have not been served with suit summons personally and the same were returned with an endorsement “ No such Person ” and thereafter only, paper publication was effected. Taking into consideration that the suit summons were not served personally on the defendants 14 and 15 and after acquiring knowledge about the exparte decree, present application has been filed by them, the Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in favour of the defendants 14 and 15 and gave them opportunity to contest the suit by imposing costs. Therefore, I do not find any legal error in the impugned order passed by the Trial court.
CRP No. 6702 of 2026
5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The Trial Court is directed to take up the Order IX Rule 13 Petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2/ defendants 14 and 15 and dispose of it on its own merits. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No mst To The XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
CRP No. 6702 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J. mst CRP No. 6702 of 2026 16-10-2026