Madras High Court
CRP/5706/2026 of Vidyashankar Vs The District Collector on 5 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP Nos. 5706 and 5707 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012126102026}
Vidyashankar
S/o. Krishnaiyar,
D.No.1/52-A, A Graharam,
Kolumam, Madathukulam Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector
O/o. Collector Office,
Tiruppur District.
2. The Tahsildar
Tahsildar Office,
Madathukulam Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
3. The Village Administrative Officer,
West Komaralingam,
Tiruppur District.
4. The Executive Officer,
Komaralingam Town Panchayat,
Madathukulam Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
..Respondent(s)
Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of CPC
to set aside the order and final orders dated 10.06.2026 made in IA Nos.4 and 5
of 2026 in OS No.62 of 2022 on the file of the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madathukulam and allow the present Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. M.Rajasekar
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Sunil, Government Advocate
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.
COMMON ORDER
CRP No.5706 of 2026 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 44 days in filing the application to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default.
2. CRP No.5707 of 2026 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC seeking to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default.
3. The petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.62 of 2022 against the respondents seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. When the suit was posted for commencement of Trial on 05.11.2026, the petitioner/plaintiff failed to appear before the court. Hence, the suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an application to restore the suit along with a petition to condone the delay of 44 days in filing such restoration application. Both the applications were filed by the petitioner on 19.01.2026.
4. 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 was suffering from fever and hence, he could not attend the court on the hearing date. Therefore, the Trial Court by impugned order, has dismissed the condone delay petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce any document to substantiate his illness. Consequently, the Trial Court has also dismissed the restoration petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.
5. Mr.P.Sunil, the learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer in the civil revision petitions.
6. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the petitioner instituted the suit for bare injunction against the respondents and though the suit was posted for commencement of trial, due to non appearance of the petitioner, the same was dismissed for default. 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 was suffering from fever and was prevented from moving out and hence, he could not attend the court. Since the petitioner/ plaintiff was not present, the suit was dismissed for default for his non appearance.
7. Having regard to the length of delay in filing the restoration petition and the illness pleaded in his affidavit, this court is inclined to take a liberal view of the matter and give one more opportunity to the petitioner to conduct his case on merits. Therefore, the impugned order, dismissing the condone delay petition is set aside.
8. As far as the CRP No.5707 of 2026 is concerned, it has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing restoration petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC, consequent to the dismissal of the condone delay petition. Now, the CRP No.5706 of 2026 filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal of the condone delay petition has been allowed by this court. As a necessary consequence, the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the restoration petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC shall also to be set aside.
9. Taking into consideration the reasons pleaded by the petitioner in the condone delay petition, this court is inclined to impose costs of Rs.1,000/- each (totally Rs.2,000/- Rupees two Thousand) on the civil revision petitioner.
10. In view of the above, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- each (Totally Rs.2,000/-) to the credit of Adyar Cancer Institute (Union Bank, Name: Cancer Institute (WIA), Account No: 149710011005477,
IFSC Code: UBIN0814971), Chennai, within a period of one week from today. On payment of costs, within the stipulated time, CRP Nos.5706 and 5707 of 2026 shall stand allowed, failing which, CRP Nos.5706 and 5707 of 2026 shall stand dismissed automatically, without further reference to the court.
11. Accordingly, CRP Nos.5706 and 5707 of 2026 are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 05-10-2026 Note: Issue order copy on 06.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madathukulam.
S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP Nos. 5706 and 5707 of 2026 05-10-2026