Madras High Court
CRP/4278/2023 of PRESIDENT Vs GUNAVATHY on 15 October 2026
CRP.No.4278 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.4278 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA011936932023}
and
CMP.No.26013 of 2023
1. President,
Reddiarpettai Samudaya Grama Panchayat,
Vadakku Theru, Reddiarpettai Village,
Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.
2. Vice President,
Reddiarpettai Samudaya Grama Panchayat,
Vadakku Theru, Reddiarpettai Village,
Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.
3. President
Reddiarpettai Samudaya Grama Panchayat,
Therku Theru, Reddiarpettai Village,
Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.
4. President
Reddiarpettai Samudaya Grama Panchayat,
Vadakku Theru, Reddiarpettai Village,
Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Gunavathy
..Respondent(s)
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:28 pm )
CRP.No.4278 of 2023
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decretal order dated 23.08.2023 passed in
I.A.No.260 of 2017 in O.S.No.466 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.
For Petitioners
: Mr.D.Baskar
For Respondent
: Mr.P.Muthukumarasamy
for M/s.V.Balamurugan
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
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, in I.A.No.260 of 2017 in O.S.No.466 of 2006, dated 23.08.2023, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 507 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.466 of 2006 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed exparte on 28.07.2015. The petitioners filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with the petition to condone the delay of 507 days in filing such application. These applications were filed on 24.01.2017. The Trial Court by the impugned order, dismissed the condone delay petition and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:28 pm )
CRP.No.4278 of 2023
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by taking this Court to the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition would submit that originally the suit was filed against the then Presidents of the Panchayat and later, their names have been deleted and the expressions President and Vice President have been incorporated in the cause title. Since there was change of Office Bearers, there was some default on the part of the defendants and exparte decree came to be passed. It is further submitted that immediately after acquiring knowledge about the exparte decree by service of notice in execution petition, the petitioners have taken steps to set aside the exparte decree by filing appropriate application on 24.01.2017.
4. It is seen from the typed-set of papers that in order to substantiate the reasoning mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, the petitioners examined two witnesses. The first witness namely PW.1, during the course of cross examination admitted that he had knowledge about the exparte decree even in the year 2015. However, the petition has been filed only in the year 2017. When the own witnesses of the petitioners admitted that they had knowledge about the exparte decree even in the year 2015, absolutely, there was no justification for the petitioners to file petition to set aside the exparte decree only on 24.01.2017.
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:28 pm )
CRP.No.4278 of 2023
5. Though in the affidavit, it was asserted by the petitioners that they acquired knowledge about the exparte decree only after service of notice in the execution petition, the petitioners have not mentioned the date on which they received notice in execution petition. However, PW.1 in his cross examination, categorically admitted that he had knowledge about the exparte decree even in the year 2015. In view of the categorical admission of PW.1, the Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to explain the delay and dismissed the condone delay petition. I do not find any error in the said order passed by the Trial Court.
6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:28 pm )
CRP.No.4278 of 2023
To The Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:28 pm )
CRP.No.4278 of 2023
S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.4278 of 2023 and CMP.No.26013 of 2023 15-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:28 pm )