Madras High Court
CRP/3332/2023 of KURSITH @ MUBARAK Vs LATHA on 7 October 2026
CRP No. 3332 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 3332 of 2023 and
CMP No.20672 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA011368152023}
Kursith @ Mubarak
S/o.Rahiman, Aasanur Main Road, Elavanaasoor Kottai village, Ulundurpet Taluk
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Latha
w/o.Dhanapal, Salem Main Road, Elavanaasoor Kottai Village, Ulundurpet Taluk
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to the set aside the order and decreetal order passed in IA No.1/2022 in IA
No.349/2020 in OS No.86/2018, on the file Additional District Munsif court, Ulundurpet dated, 07.06.2023.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms. R.Poornima
For Respondent(s):
Ms. S.Sasikala
__________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 05:48:54 pm )
CRP No. 3332 of 2023
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 60 days in filing a petition to restore I.A.No.349 of 2020.
2. The case of the civil revision petitioner is as follows:- The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.86 of 2018 seeking declaration, title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit B schedule property. The suit was decreed exparte on 29.08.2019. The petitioner herein filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with I.A.No.349 of 2020 to condone the delay of 289 days in filing the set aside petition. The said application in I.A.No.349 of 2020 was allowed on 18.08.2022 with a condition to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as costs, within a period of 15 days. However, the petitioner failed to pay the costs and hence, I.A.No.349 of 2020 was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed two applications, viz., one was to restore I.A.No.349 of 2020 and the another was to condone the delay in filing the restoration petition. By impugned order, the said petitions were dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court. __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 05:48:54 pm )
CRP No. 3332 of 2023
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the condition imposed by the court in I.A.No.349 of 2020 was not informed to the petitioner by his counsel and hence, the petitioner was prevented from paying the cost, within the time stipulated by the court. He would further submit that, after acquiring the knowledge about the dismissal, the petitioner has filed a petition to restore I.A.No.349 of 2020 along with condone delay petition.
4. Admittedly, the application in I.A.No.349 of 2020 was considered by the Trial Court and Order has been passed, directing the petitioner to pay cost, as a condition for allowing that petition. Therefore, the present applications were filed by the petitioner seeking to restore the said I.A.No.349 of 2020 along with condone delay petition in filing restoration petition are not maintainable. However, the petitioner has given reason in the affidavit that due to failure of his counsel to intimate the order, costs was not paid within the stipulated time. Even though the prayer sought for in the present application is improper, taking into consideration the facts narrated in the affidavit, the court can mould the relief.
5. The petitioner asserted in the affidavit filed along with the present petition that the condition imposed by the Court in I.A.No.349 of 2020 was not informed to the petitioner by his counsel and hence, the cost was not paid in time. The present application has been filed by the petitioner on 04.11.2022 and __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 05:48:54 pm )
CRP No. 3332 of 2023 he should have sought for extension of time. However, the petitioner sought for restoration of I.A.No.349 of 2020 and to condone the delay in filing such restoration petition. Taking into consideration the facts narrated in affidavit filed in support of the present interlocutory application, this court feels that the petitioner is entitled to extension of time for payment of costs, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay the enhanced costs of Rs.10,000/-.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the credit of O.S.No.86 of 2018 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On such deposit being made by the petitioner, I.A.No.349 of 2020 shall stand allowed and the Trial Court is directed to take up the petition to set aside the exparte decree and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
7. With the above directions, this civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 05:48:54 pm )
CRP No. 3332 of 2023 To The Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet. __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 05:48:54 pm )
CRP No. 3332 of 2023 S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 3332 of 2023 07-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 05:48:54 pm )