Madras High Court
CRP/4373/2023 of M.Veerapandiyan Vs V.Periyar Brain on 9 October 2026
CRP.No.4373 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.4373 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA012024842023}
M.Veerapandiyan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
V.Periyar Brain
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set-aside the fair and final order dated 25.08.2023 in
I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.321 of 2010 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur.
For Petitioner
: Mr.K.Sudhakar
For Respondent
: Mr.A.V.Raja
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 Subordinate Court, Tiruppur, in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.321 of 2010, dated 25.08.2023, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner
( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:47 pm )
CRP.No.4373 of 2023
seeking to condone the delay of 1454 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.321 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruppur, seeking declaration declaring that the Sale Deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant was null and void and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The petitioner herein was arrayed as 1st defendant in the suit. The suit filed by the respondent was decree exparte on 10.03.2011. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with a petition to condone the delay of 1454 days on 27.03.2015. 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 appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was suffering from kidney ailment and he underwent surgery. Therefore, he could not contact his counsel and give suitable instructions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, without considering the valid reason assigned by the petitioner, the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the condone delay petition.
( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:47 pm )
CRP.No.4373 of 2023
4. It is seen from the typed-set of papers that the exparte decree was passed against the petitioner on 10.03.2011. Later, the respondent filed a execution petition in E.P.No.14 of 2014. In the said execution petition, notice was received by the petitioner on 27.03.2014. However, he failed to enter appearance in execution petition also and hence, he was set exparte in the execution proceedings. Therefore, it is clear that inspite of receipt of notice in execution petition, the petitioner has not taken any steps to set aside the exparte decree. The instant application has been filed only on 27.03.2015. Absolutely, the petitioner has no explanation for delay from 10.03.2011 to the date on which he received notice in execution petition and also upto the date of filing of this application on 27.03.2015.
5. Even though, the petitioner cited kidney ailment as the reason for his failure to appear before the Trial Court, he has not marked any document before the Court below to substantiate the alleged kidney surgery undergone by him. In the typed-set of papers, the petitioner produced some medical documents, which have not been marked before the Court below. Though this Court is not entitled to look into the documents, which have not been marked before the Court below, a perusal of the same would indicate that the petitioner underwent a surgery for chronic prostatitis. Therefore, the averment in the affidavit of the petitioner as if, he suffered kidney ailment and underwent kidney surgery is not
( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:47 pm )
CRP.No.4373 of 2023
correct. The petitioner underwent surgery for correcting chronic prostatitis, the same appears to be small surgery. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was kept out of action for several years due to the said ailment.
6. In the absence of any medical records to support the averment in the affidavit, based on the mere assertion made by the petitioner in the affidavit, this Court is not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 1454 days. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm
( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:47 pm )
CRP.No.4373 of 2023
To The Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruppur.
( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:47 pm )
CRP.No.4373 of 2023
S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.4373 of 2023 09-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:47 pm )