Madras High Court
CRP/6520/2026 of Somasundaram Vs Ravishankar on 9 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6520 of 2026 and
CMP No.28083 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011513712026}
Somasundaram
S/o Seetha Raman
No.107, Valarpuram Village Sriperumbudur Taluk Kancheepuram District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Ravishankar, S/o Sri T.V.S.Manian,
H Block, 21st Street,
Plot No.1464, Anna Nagar,
Chennai- 600 040.Chennai
2. Rajamani S/o Late Manika Gramani,
239, New No. 238
K.v.b Garden Mylapore,
Chennai- 600 004.
3. V.m.kannan, No.360/10/11,
J.J.Nagar, Mogappair East,
Chennai- 600 037.
4. The Sub-registrar
Sriperumbudur
Kancheepuram District
5. The Sub Registrar,
Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 05.09.2022 passed in
I.A.No.1 of 022 in O.S.No.369 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur and allow this revision petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. E.Udayachander
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Sunil, Government Advocate
for R4
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 2720 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree passed against him.
2. The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.369 of 2008 seeking declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendants 1 and 2 therein in favour of the 3rd defendant dated 14.12.2006 was a fraudulent document and also for injunction restraining the petitioner and other defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit property. The said suit was decreed exparte on 21.08.2014. The petitioner / 2nd defendant filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with a petition to condone the delay in filing set aside petition on 03.03.2022. The Trial Court 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 receipt of suit summons, the petitioner, who was arrayed ans 2nd defendant in the suit engaged a counsel through the 1st defendant and after some time, the first defendant died on 27.05.2015. Hence, the petitioner had no contact with the counsel. It is further stated by the petitioner that he was suffering from illness and hence, he could not contact his counsel immediately. It is also stated that after much difficulty, he contacted his counsel on 18.01.2022 and then only, he acquired knowledge about the exparte decree passed against him. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned order and to allow the condone delay petition.
4. It is seen from the averments found in the affidavit filed along with the condone delay petition that the petitioner engaged a counsel through the first defendant and the first defendant died only on 27.05.2015. However, the exparte decree was passed against the petitioner as early as on 21.08.2014. Therefore, it is clear that even during life time of the first defendant, no steps have been taken to set aside the exparte decree. Even though the petitioner pleaded that he was suffering from illness, no materials have been placed to substantiate the illness suffered by him. Merely because the petitioner suffered some kind of illness, he could not await for 8 years to contact his counsel leisurely. The reasons assigned by the petitioner in the affidavit are not acceptable to condone such inordinate delay of 2720 days. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the above said position and dismissed the condone delay petition and I do not find any error in the impugned order.
5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The District Munsif, Sriperumbudur.
S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 6520 of 2026 09-10-2026