Madras High Court
CRP/6576/2026 of M.Saravanan Vs S.Bala Subramanian on 14 October 2026
CRP No. 6576 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6576 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012204002026}
M.Saravanan
...Petitioner
Vs
S.Bala Subramanian
...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.02 of 2025 in O.S.No.103 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.Anilkumar
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 trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 2381 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.103 of 2017.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance. After receiving the suit summons, the petitioner engaged an Advocate. However, due to the non-filing of a written statement, an ex-parte decree was passed against him on 28.04.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice in the Execution Petition filed by the respondent in April 2019. The petitioner again engaged the
CRP No. 6576 of 2026
very same counsel. However, according to the petitioner, the counsel did not enter appearance in the Execution Petition also. Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice in the Execution Application in E.A.No.74 of 2024 in October 2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against him on 28.04.2018. He also filed an application to condone the delay of 2381 days in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the condone delay petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after receiving the suit summons, the petitioner engaged a counsel, but the counsel failed to conduct the case properly and as a result ex-parte decree was passed against the petitioner. It is further stated that even in the execution proceedings, the petitioner engaged the very same Advocate, who committed a default for the second time. In view of the said reason, there was a delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.
4. As per the admission made by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay petition, that he received notice in the Execution Petition during the first week of April, 2019. Therefore, the petitioner acquired knowledge about the ex-parte decree as early as April 2019. However,
CRP No. 6576 of 2026
the present application has been filed only on 03.12.2024. The averment made by the petitioner that as if he believed his advocate, who already committed default in defending the suit, even after the receipt of notice in Execution Petition, is highly unbelievable. The trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to explain the inordinate delay of 2381 days and dismissed the application. Hence, I do not find any serious error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rya / ep To:- The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.
CRP No. 6576 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J. rya / ep CRP No. 6576 of 2026 14-10-2026