Madras High Court
CRP/6348/2026 of V.Kannapiran Vs V.Kuppammal on 9 October 2026
CRP No. 6348 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6348 of 2026
and
CMP.No.27372 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012202742026}
V.Kannapiran
..Petitioner
Vs
V.Kuppammal
..Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the order dated 14-07-2026 passed in IA.No.2 of 2024 in OS.No.482 of 2021 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Chengalpattu.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.P.G.Thiyagu
For Respondent(s):
Mr.J.Selvarajan
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 245 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 19.12.2022.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance and the same was decreed on 19.12.2022. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree along with a petition to condone the delay of 245 days in
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 03:08:04 pm )
CRP No. 6348 of 2026
filing such application on 19.09.2023. The 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 the petitioner/defendant was not served with notice in the suit and service was effected only by paper publication. Immediately after acquiring knowledge about the suit, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, of course, with a delay of 245 days. The learned counsel submits that absolutely there is no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner and as soon as he acquired knowledge about the suit proceedings, the instant application has been filed. Therefore, an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to contest the case on merits. It is also stated that the agreement entered into by the respondent for specific performance is a fabricated document.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that even though the petition to set aside the ex parte decree was filed by the petitioner before the Court on 19.03.2023, he had taken considerable time to get the same numbered and the said inaction on the part of the petitioner established lack of bona fides on his part. It is further submitted that, as the notice taken to the respondent was not served, the respondent applied for substituted service and after effecting paper publication, a decree has been passed.
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 03:08:04 pm )
CRP No. 6348 of 2026
5. It is seen from the averments of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition and also the other documents in the typed set of papers, it is clear that an ex parte decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the respondent on 19.12.2022. It is not in dispute that the suit summons which was taken to the petitioner had not been served. Ultimately, the substituted service was effected by paper publication. Therefore, it is clear that personal service has not been effected in the case on hand.
6. The petitioner, pleading ignorance of the suit proceedings, seeks to set aside the ex parte decree. It is asserted by the petitioner that as soon as he acquired knowledge about the suit proceedings, the application has been filed to set aside the ex parte decree. Taking into consideration the personal service has not been effected on the petitioner and the service was effected only through paper publication and also the length of delay, this Court is inclined to take a liberal view of the matter and give one more opportunity to the petitioner.
7. It is also seen that there is some delay on the part of the petitioner in getting the condone delay application numbered after filing the same, hence, this Court is inclined to put the petitioner on terms.
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 03:08:04 pm )
CRP No. 6348 of 2026
8. In the light of the discussions made above, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside, on condition that the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the respondent. The said amount shall be deposited to the credit of O.S.No.482 of 2021, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, I.A.No.2 of 2024 will stand allowed. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the said amount by filing proper application. The trial Court is directed to take up the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C., and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the amount as directed, this Civil Revision Petition shall stand automatically dismissed.
9. Taking into consideration that the suit is of the year 2021, in case the trial Court decides to allow the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C, the suit shall be taken up for consideration and disposed of as early as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of disposal of the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C.
10. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09-10-2026 Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No kak
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 03:08:04 pm )
CRP No. 6348 of 2026
To The learned Judge, Additional District Judge at Chengalpattu.
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 03:08:04 pm )
CRP No. 6348 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J. kak CRP No. 6348 of 2026 and CMP.No.27372 of 2026 09-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 03:08:04 pm )