Madras High Court
CRP/1112/2023 of P.BALASUBRAMANIAM @ BALAN Vs K.GOVINDARAJ on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 1112 of 2023
and CMP.No.7822 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA010589822023}
P.Balasubramaniam @ Balan
D.No.102, Vinayagapuram, 3rd Street, Rayapuram, Tirupur. Presently residing at D.No.38, Vedha Illam, Rayapuram 3rd Street Extension, Tirupur 641 601.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
K.Govindaraj
Res. at D.No.2, Amarjothi Garden, Mangalam Road, Tirupur.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure to allow the CRP and set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 05.1.2023 passed in IA NO.231/2020 in OS.No.336/2014 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tiruppur.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.I. Abrar Mohamed Abdullah
for S.Saravanakumar
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.K.Vengadesh Durai Raja
for Deepan Uday
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:34 pm )
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 is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 723 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte decree on 06.01.2018.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The petitioner, who was arrayed as 1st defendant suffered an exparte decree. Hence, he filed an application to set aside exparte decree along with instant application seeking to condone the delay of 723 days. The said application 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 the petitioner engaged advocate and filed a written statement. Thereafter, it was informed by the advocate that as and when presence of the petitioner is required, an intimation would be given to him and believing the words, the petitioner did not follow up the case. However, the petitioner received a notice in execution petition on 02.01.2020, only thereafter, he engaged the other counsel and acquired knowledge about exparte decree passed against him.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:34 pm )
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no wilful reason for the delay in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree and the delay had occasioned due to the bonafide reasons.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that this is the second time, the petitioner was set exparte and in spite of the earlier indulgence by the Court, the petitioner has committed default and hence, he was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed against the petitioner.
6. A perusal of the typed set of papers would indicate that on receipt of the summons, the petitioner/1st defendant failed to file written statement in time and hence, he was set ex-parte. Thereafter, an application has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the set exparte order and the same was allowed. Thereafter, issues were framed and the matter was posted for trial. Again, the petitioner/1st defendant committed default and hence he was set ex-parte on 20.07.2017. Thereafter, exparte decree was passed on 06.01.2018. Therefore, it is clear that this is not the first time the petitioner had committed default and earlier also, he failed to file a written statement and hence he was set exparte. On an application filed by the petitioner, the said exparte decree was set aside. Now it is stated by the petitioner that believing the words of his counsel, he failed to followed up the case.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:34 pm )
7. It is seen from the records that the case was posted for trial on 01.04.2017 and the present application has been filed only in the year 2020. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has not followed up the case. The litigant who engaged a counsel is expected to follow the case. If the litigant fails to follow the case for very long time, then he is not entitled to put the blame on the advocate. The petitioner has not given any justifiable reasons for explaining 723 days delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree.
8. Taking into consideration that this is the second time, the petitioner has committed default and the delay has also not been explained, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06-10-2026 ub Index : Yes Speaking order:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes ub
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:34 pm )
To The Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:34 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J. ub CRP No. 1112 of 2023 06-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:34 pm )