Madras High Court
CRP/697/2026 of D.M.PUSHPAVALLI Vs M.SOUNDARARAJAN on 12 October 2026
CRP.No.697 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.697 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010199742026}
D.M.Pushpavalli
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. M.Soundararajan
2. M.Ravi
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to call for the res and set aside the same in fair and decretal order dated 13.11.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.213 of 2021 passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Salem.
For Petitioner
: Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar
For R1
: Mr.P.Jagadeesan
For R2
: No Appearance
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 I Additional District Munsif, Salem, in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.213 of 2021, dated 13.11.2025, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and
CRP.No.697 of 2026
2nd respondent herein seeking to condone the delay of 337 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondents are sister and brothers. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. In the said suit, the exparte decree was against the petitioner and 2nd respondent on 12.07.2022. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent filed an application seeking to set aside the exparte decree along a petition to condone the delay of 337 days in filing such petition. The condone delay petition was dismissed by the Trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was suffering from spinal cord injury and also due to corona pandemic, she could not engage counsel to contest the case. It is also stated that the delay in filing petition to set aside the exparte decree is not a wilful, wanton one but due to the circumstances narrated above.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the petitioner has not given any valid reason to condone the delay and she has not produced any records to substantiate the claim made in the affidavit.
CRP.No.697 of 2026
5. It is seen from the records that notice was duly served on the petitioner and she was set exparte on 08.10.2021 during covid pandemic. However, the pandemic period was over during February-2022. Subsequently, the exparte decree was passed against the petitioner only on 12.07.2022, from February-2022 to July-2022, the petitioner has no valid explanation. Further, the instant application has been filed only on 13.07.2023. The petitioner failed to explain the delay from March-2022 to July-2023.
6. Even though the petitioner mentioned that she suffer spinal cord injury and had taken treatment for the same, she has not produced any medical records to substantiate the averment made in the affidavit, as if she was suffering from spinal cord injury and hence, disabled from contesting the case. The Trial Court rightly appreciated the said position and dismissed the condone delay petition. I do not find any error in the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm To The I Additional District Munsif, Salem.
CRP.No.697 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.697 of 2026 12-10-2026