Madras High Court
CRP/5452/2026 of RAMADOSS Vs Murugadoss 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. 5452 of 2026 and
CMP No.23637 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011380692024}
Ramadoss, S/o. Rangasamy Gounder,
Kosapalayam Village,
Thirukonam Madura, Vikravandi Taluk,
Villupuram Dt.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Murugadoss, S/o. Rangasamy Gounder,
Kosapalayam Village,
Thirukonam Madura, Vikravandi Taluk,
Villupuram Dist.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the order and decreetal order, dated 13-03-2024 passed in IA.No.199 of 2022 in OS.No.284 of 2017 by the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vikravandi.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms. M/s.R.Sripriya
For Respondent(s):
Mr. S. Natarajan
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 954 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree.
2. The respondent herein is brother of the petitioner and he filed a suit in O.S.No.284 of 2017 for partition against the petitioner, his father and sister. The suit was decreed exparte on 28.01.2019. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with a petition to condone the delay of 954 days in filing the set aside petition. 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 for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner suffered a fracture in his hand and he had taken native treatment for the same and hence, he was prevented from appearing before the court. Therefore, the Trial Court has passed the exparte decree. She further submitted that while considering the application seeking condonation of delay, the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the outbreak of Covid pandemic.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner was set exparte on 08.06.2018 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned for several occasions and ultimately exparte decree was passed on 28.01.2019. It is also stated by him that limitation for filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree got expired even before the outbreak of Covid pandemic and therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the Covid Pandemic.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, it was asserted by the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, he suffered a fracture in his hand and he had taken native treatment for the same. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the instant application has been filed by the petitioner only on 24.07.2021. It is a matter of common knowledge that Covid outbreak had happened in March 2020 and the same had been continued for several months. Having regard to the fact that the suit has been filed for partition and the petitioner and the respondents are brothers, this court is inclined to take a liberal view of the matter and to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to contest his case on merits. Though the outbreak of Covid Pandemic had been continued from March 2020 to the date of filing of the present application, the period, viz., prior to March 2020 shall also to be explained.
6. In the case on hand, the petitioner filed a sworn affidavit stating that he suffered a fracture in his hand and had taken native treatment for the same. Since the petitioner is stated to have undergone native treatment, he is not in a position to produce any medical certificate to substantiate the treatment taken by him. In view of the above discussion, this court is inclined to accept the reason assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking condone the delay and to allow the said petition, subject to payment of costs.
7. Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands allowed on the following conditions.
i) The petitioner shall make a payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the counsel for the respondent, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which, the civil revision petition shall stand automatically dismissed.
ii) On compliance to the above condition, within the stipulated time, the Trial Court is directed to take up the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of eight
(8) weeks from the date of payment of costs.
iii) It is seen from the typed set of papers that the suit is of the year 2017. Therefore, in case, the Trial Court is inclined to set aside the exparte decree, then, the suit shall be tried expeditiously and to be disposed of, within a period of nine (9) months from the date of setting aside the exparte decree. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vikravandi.
S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 5452 of 2026 06-10-2026