Madras High Court
CRP/1007/2025 of M.SRINIVASAN Vs SAKTHIVEL on 14 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 1007 of 2025 and
CMP No.5726 of 2025
CNR: {HCMA012070452024}
M.Srinivasan, s/o.P.Mayavar,
No.120, 1st Street, Senippondi Village,
Kilpennathur Tk.,
Thiuvannamalai District - 606 795.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Sakthivel, S/o.Rajamanickam,
No.17/54 Poraiyur, Gonur Post,
Mettur Dam -1, Salem Dist.
2. The District, Collector
Collecotrate Salem.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decree dated 30-11-2024 in I.A.No.1/2022 in O.S.No.15/2017 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Salem.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.R.Rajarajan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.B.Ravi for R1
Mr.P.Sunil, Government Advocate for R2
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 1456 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.
2. The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.15 of 2017 seeking recovery of money, based on the contract work and it was decreed exparte on 04.11.2017. The petitioner/1st defendant filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree along with a petition to condone the delay of 1456 days. The said condone delay petition was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant would submit that in the main suit, the petitioner has not been served with notice and the address of the petitioner/ 1st defendant given in the plaint was also very vague and hence, suit summons was not served on the petitioner. He would further submit that the trial court had ordered substituted service by paper publication and proceeded to pass exparte decree against the petitioner. It is further stated by him that as against the exparte decree passed against the petitioner, he filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree along with condone delay petition, however, the Trial court dismissed the condone delay petition by passing the impugned order.
4. The learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner/1st defendant was served with notice in a petition filed by the plaintiff seeking leave to sue as an indigent person and thereafter, only in the suit, summons has not been served on the petitioner. Therefore, according to first respondent/ plaintiff, the petitioner had knowledge of the suit.
5. A perusal of the typed set of papers and the impugned order would indicate that the suit summons has not been served on the petitioner/1st defendant. A perusal of the plaint would also indicate that the address of the petitioner/ 1st defendant has been stated as “ M.Srinivasan, Proprietor of MSK Construction, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District, Pin 606 755”. Therefore, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has not given the details of Door Number, Street name, Town name etc., and he only mentioned the name of the business concern, Taluk and District. The address of the petitioner/1st defendant given in the plaint is very vague and it may not be possible to serve notice on him, based on the above said vague address.
6. As seen from the impugned order, suit summons sent to the petitioner was returned with an endorsement “no such address” and thereafter, the Trial Court had proceeded to order substituted service by “ Paper Publication ”. Since the address given by the plaintiff in the plaint is very vague, suit summons was not served on the petitioner. Therefore, this court feels that it is a fit case to give an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits and hence, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed on the following conditions.
i) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the delay of 1456 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is condoned, on condition, the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the credit of O.S.No.15 of 2017 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Salem, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing compliance, the civil revision petition shall stand dismissed automatically.
ii) In case of compliance of the above said condition, the Trial Court is directed to take up the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and dispose it of, in accordance with law.
iii) Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2017, in case the exparte decree is set aside, the trial court is directed to take up the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2017 and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MSt To The II Additional District Judge, Salem.
S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 1007 of 2025 14-10-2026