Madras High Court
CRP/6416/2026 of Natarajan (Died) Narayanan (Died) 1.Kuppusamy Vs Munusamy (Deceased) Chinnappa on 15 October 2026
CRP No. 6416 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6416 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012386432026}
and
CMP NO. 27606 OF 2026
1.Natarajan (Died) Narayanan (Died)
1.Kuppusamy
2.Myamma @ Mayamma
3.Dhanalakshmi
4.Sundarammal
5.Raman
6.Lakshmanan
7.Rejeswari
8.Divya
9.Amulu
10.Ambiga
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Munusamy (Deceased)
1.Chinnappa
1.The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District,
District Collectorate,
Tiruvallur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruttani,
RDO Office, Velanjeri,
Tiruttani Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Tiruttani Taluk ,
Thasildar Officer,
Velanjeri,
Tiruttani Taluk,
CRP No. 6416 of 2026
Tiruvallur District.
4.Maliga
W/o Late Subramani
Arundathi Colony,
Agoor Village and Post,
Tiruttani Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
5.Ramesh
S/o Late Subramani,
Arundathi Colony,
Agoor Village and Post,
Tiruttani Taluk
Tiruvallur District.
6.Ananthan
S/o Late Subramani,
Arundathi Colony,
Agoor Village and Post,
Tirutanni Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
7.Vinayagamoorthy
S/o Late Subramani,
Arundathi Colony,
Agoor Village and Post,
Tirutanni Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This Civil Revision is filed under Section 115 of CPC, praying to set aside the Impugned order dated 19.09.2026 passed in I.A.No.11 of 2026 in OS.No.63 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruttani.
For Petitioner(s):
V. Jagannadan
For Respondent(s):
M.Ayyadurai
For R1
Mr.P.Sunil,
Government Advocate for R2 to R4
CRP No. 6416 of 2026
R5 to R8 - Service Awaited
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 is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed by the 1st respondent and one deceased Munusamy/defendants 1 and 2 in the suit seeking to set aside the exparte order on 22.12.2017.
2. The petitioners herein filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the said suit, the 1st respondent and one Munusamy have been arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 and they were set exparte on 22.12.2017. Now, the suit is at the stage of PW.1 cross. The 1st respondent and said Munusamy filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC to set aside the exparte order passed on 22.12.2017. The said application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that there was long delay in filing the application. The trial Court by impugned order allowed the application on condition that the petitioner therein should pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the exparte order was passed against the 1st respondent as early as on 22.12.2017
CRP No. 6416 of 2026 and the application was filed only in the year 2026. In the absence of any explanation for the delay of more than nine years, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application.
4. It is settled law, as far as, petition under Order IX Rule 7 is concerned there is no limitation and the same can be filed at any time before passing of the decree in the suit.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of such application, it was stated by the 1st respondent and other petitioners that in connection with their work they visited various places and hence, could not keep track of the litigation. It is also submitted that they were suffering illness. Since there is no limitation for filing an application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC , the Court can take liberal view of the matter. Further, in the case on hand, the trial has just commenced and the same is only in the stage of PW.2 cross.
6. Taking into consideration the said fact, the trial Court rightly adopted liberal approach and allowed the application by imposing cost on the 1st respondent and other petitioners therein. The trial Court exercised its discretion in favour of the 1st respondent and other petitioners therein and gave them one more opportunity to conduct the case on merits.
CRP No. 6416 of 2026
7. I do not find any perversity in the approach of the trial Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous Petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index : Yes Speaking order:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes ub To The District Munsif Court, Tiruttani.
CRP No. 6416 of 2026 S.SOUNTHAR J. ub CRP No. 6416 of 2026 15-10-2026