Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2713/2026 of D. Chandra Vs Antony Xavier Dennis Raja on 1 October 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2713 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD011358572026}
Case QR
and
C.M.P(MD)No.13911 of 2026
D.Chandra
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Antony Xavier Dennis Raja
.. Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.
No. 37 of 2023 in O.S. No. 195 of 2012 dated 12-08-2026 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchendur by allowing this civil revision petition.
For Petitioner
: Mr.N.Vignesh
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 against the order dated 12.08.2026 passed in IA.No.37 of 2023 in OS.No.195 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchendur.
2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff who instituted the suit seeking the relief of specific performance. The suit was decreed ex parte on 10.09.2012. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P.No.25 of 2020 seeking execution of the sale deed in terms of the decree. According to the petitioner, summons in the execution proceedings were also not served on her. However, the Executing Court proceeded to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent on 28.09.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application seeking condonation of the delay of 3,390 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 10.09.2012. The petitioner contended that she had not received summons either in the suit or in the execution proceedings and that she came to know about the ex parte decree only upon receipt of notice in E.A.No.1 of 2022. On this ground, she sought condonation of the delay.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the signatures found in the summons did not belong to the petitioner and that she intended to mark the relevant documents in support of her contention. However, it is pertinent to note that no such specific plea disputing the signatures found in the summons was raised in the petition filed before the trial Court.
4. The specific case of the petitioner before the trial Court was that she had not received summons either in the suit or in the execution proceedings and that she came to know about the decree only upon receipt of notice in E.A.No.1 of 2022. She further contended that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton, but had occurred solely on account of the alleged non-service of summons. Except for the aforesaid explanation, the petitioner had not furnished any other reason to account for the inordinate delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree.
5. The trial Court, upon examining the records, categorically found that summons in the suit had been duly served on the petitioner in the year 2012 and that summons in the execution proceedings had also been duly served on her in the year 2013. In view of these findings, the trial Court rejected the petitioner’s contention regarding non-service of summons. The trial Court further observed that, even according to the petitioner’s own case, she had acquired knowledge of the decree upon receipt of notice in E.A.No.1 of 2022, whereas the application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed only on 08.04.2022. The petitioner had not furnished any satisfactory explanation for the delay in approaching the Court even after acquiring such knowledge. The trial Court also observed that the petitioner had failed to explain the delay satisfactorily and to establish sufficient cause warranting condonation of the inordinate delay.
6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner sought condonation of a delay of 3,390 days, which is in excess of nine years. The petitioner had also failed to establish that summons had not been duly served in the execution proceedings. Further, even after the alleged date of knowledge of the decree, the petitioner had not satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the application. The mere assertion that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton, without substantiating the same by a sufficient and acceptable explanation, cannot by itself constitute sufficient cause for condoning such an inordinate delay. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay and having regard to the findings recorded by the trial Court upon perusal of the records, this Court finds no perversity or infirmity warranting interference with the order under challenge. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.10.2026 Index : Yes / No RM Copy To
1. The Sub Court, Tiruchendur.
R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.2713 of 2026 01.10.2026