CRP/4715/2026 of S.Udhayakumar Vs Maryrajam Irudayaraj on 30 September 2026

1. S.Udhayakumar S/o J.Shakthivel, No.21,F2, Praneel Anoop Apartments, 5th street, East Banu Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai- 600053.

2. L.Gunaseelan, S/o R.Logananthan, No.500, Anjaneyar Kovil St, Arakkonam Tk, Ranipet Dt.

3. P.Vedanayagi D/o Pushparaj, No.143, Mosur Road, Arakonam- 631 001.

4. P.Anna Mary D/o Pushparaj, No.143, Mosur Road, Arakonam- 631 001, Ranipet District.

5. K.Ravikumar S/o K.Kuppa Naidu, 15/21, Nehruji Nagar 5th St, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

6. M.Prashanthi D/o Munusamy, No.339(1) Raja St, Thanigaipolur, Arakkonam - 631 003

Ranipet District.

7. P.Olivannan, S/o P.M.Panjatcharam, M210A, TNHB Jothi Nagar, Arakkonam- 631 003.

8. N.Saravanan, S/o Narayanan, MIG 2/11, TNHB, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

9. T.R.Sowmiya W/o C.S.Sathish Prasad, No.4, Balasubramani Kovil St, Suvalpettai, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

10. C.S.Sathish Prasad, S/o Chandrasekaran, No.4, Balasubramani Kovil St, Suvalpettai, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

11. P.Latha W/o Purushothamman, No.41/24, Town hall 3rd St, Suvalpettai, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

12. Deepa.L No.316, 8th B Cross, Flower Garden, Bangaole North 560 023, Magadi Road, Bangalore, Karnataka State.

13. Premnaath Susila Munirathinam S/o Munirathinam, No.1, Neruji Nagar 5th St, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

14. K.Senthilkumar, S/o Kirubanandam,

No.5, Senthil Nagar, Mangammapettai Gate, Vadamambakkam, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

15. Lavanya w/o Logesh, No.22-696/5, Rajaji nagar, Estate CK Palli Po, Chittoor 517 001, Andhra Pradesh

16. G.Kavitha w/o Gopi M-176, TNHB Jothi Nagar Po, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

17. V.Devi W/o Vedvyasan, No.316, Bajanai Kovil St, Kattupakkam 632 502, Nimili Tk, Ranipet Dt.

18. B.S,Padma, W/o Lingamoorthy, No.133, sholinghar Road, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

19. Vadivel S/o M.K.Vasantharayan No.12-139, N.T.R.Nagar, Pudupettai Nagari, Chitoor- 517 590, Andhra Pradesh. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Maryrajam Irudayaraj, W/o. Late J.D.Irudayaraj,

24/2, Somasundaram 6th Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

2. I.Immagulate Mary D/o. Late J.D.Irudayaraj, 24/2, Somasundaram 6th Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

3. I.Victoria, D/o. Late J.D.Irudayaraj, 24/2, Somasundaram 6th Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

4. T.R.Subramanian, S/o. T.S.Ramalinga Mudaliar, 112, Gandhi Road, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District. J.D.Philamen Raj (died) J.D.Xavier (died) J.D.Vincent (died) J.D.Josephine (died)

5. J.D.Margret Mary, D/o Late J.Dyrianathan, M11/15, TNHB, Jothi Nagar, Arakkonam-7.

6. J.D.Alphonsa Mary, D/o Late J.Dyriranathan, M11/15, TNHB, Jothi Nagar, Arakkonam-7. ..Respondent(s)

CNR:{HCMA012950672025} S. Nalina W/o.T.Sundaramoorthy, 5/3, Milk Society Subramani Street, Suvalpet -631 001,

Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District. ..Appellant(s) Vs

1. J. D. Margret Mary, D/o.late J.Dyrianathan, M11/15, TNHB, Jothi Nagar, Arakkonam -631 003. Vellore District.

2. J.D.Alphonsa Mary D/o.late J.Dyrianathan, M11/15, TNHB, Jothi Nagar, Arakkonam -631 003. Vellore District.

3. T.R.Subramanian S/o.T.S.Ramalinga Mudaliar, 1123, Gandhi Road, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District -631 209. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 589 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA012950682025} S. Nalina W/o.T.Sundaramoorthy, 5/3, Milk Society Subramani Street, Suvalpet -631 001, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District. ..Appellant(s) Vs

1. Maryrajam Irudayaraj, W/o.Late J.D.Irudayaraj, Residing at 24/2, Somasundaram 6th Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai -600 023.

2. I.Immagulate Mary, D/o.Late J.D.Irudayaraj, Residing at 24/2, Somasundaram 6th Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai -600 023.

3. I.Victoria, D/o.late J.D.Irudayaraj, Residing at 24/2, Somasundaram 6th Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai -600 023.

4. T.R.Subramanian, S/o.T.S.Ramalinga Mudaliar, 1123, Gandhi Road, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District -631 209. J.D.Philamen Raj(Died) J.D.Xavier (Died) J.D.Vincent(Died) J.D.Josephine(Died)

5. J.D.Margret Mary, D/o.late J.Dyrianathan, M11/15, TNHB, Jothi Nagar, Arakkonam -631 003. Vellore District.

6. J.D.Alphonsa Mary, D/o.late J.Dyrianathan, M11/15, TNHB, Jothi Nagar, Arakkonam -631 003. Vellore District. ... Respondents

CNR:{HCMA011532922026}

1. S. Udhayakumar S/o J.Sakthivel, No.21,F2, Praneel Anoop Apartments, 5th street, East Banu Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai- 600053.

2. L.Gunaseelan, S/o R.Logananthan, No.500, Anjaneyar Kovil St, Arakkonam Tk, Ranipet Dt.

3. P.Vedanayagi D/o Pushparaj, No.143, Mosur Road, Arakonam- 631 001.

4. P.Anna Mary D/o Pushparaj, No.143, Mosur Road, Arakonam- 631 001, Ranipet District.

5. K.Ravikumar S/o K.Kuppa Naidu, 15/21, Nehruji Nagar 5th St, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt,

6. M.Prashanthi D/o Munusamy, No.339(1) Raja St, Thanigaipolur, Arakkonam - 631 003 Ranipet District.

7. P.Olivannan, S/o P.M.Panjatcharam,

M210A, TNHB Jothi Nagar, Arakkonam- 631 003.

8. N.Saravanan, S/o Narayanan, MIG 2/11, TNHB, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

9. T.R.Sowmiya W/o C.S.Sathish Prasad, No.4, Balasubramani Kovil St, Suvalpettai, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

10. C.S.Sathish Prasad, S/o Chandrasekaran, No.4, Balasubramani Kovil St, Suvalpettai, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

11. P.Latha W/o Purushothamman, No.41/24, Town hass 3rd St, Suvalpettai, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

12. Deepa.L No.316, 8th B Cross, Flower Garden, Bangalore North 560 023, Magadi Road, Bangalore, Karnataka State.

13. Premnaath Susila Munirathinam S/o Munirathinam, No.1, Neruji Nagar 5th St, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

14. K.Senthilkumar, S/o Kirubanandam, No.5, Senthil Nagar,

Mangammapettai Gate, Vadamambakkam, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

15. Lavanya w/o Logesh, No.22-696/5, Rajaji nagar, Estate CK Palli Po, Chittoor 517 001, Andhra Pradesh

16. G.Kavitha w/o Gopi M-176, TNHB Jothi Nagar Po, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

17. V.Devi W/o Vedvyasan, No.316, Bajanai Kovil St, Kattupakkam 632 502, Nimili Tk, Ranipet Dt.

18. B.S,Padma, W/o Lingamoorthy, No.133, sholinghar Road, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

19. Vadivel S/o M.K.Vasantharayan No.12-139, N.T.R.Nagar, Pudupettai Nagari, Chitoor- 517 590, Andhra Pradesh. ... Petitioners Vs

1. J. D. Margret Mary D/o Late J.Dyrianathan, M11/15, TNHB,

Jothi Nagar, Arakkonam-7.

2. J.D.Alphonsa Mary, D/o Late J.Dyriranathan, M11/15, TNHB, Jothi Nagar,Arakkonam-7.

3. T.R.Subramanian S/o T.S.Ramalinga Mudaliar, 112, Gandhi Road, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur Dt. .. Respondents CMP No. 27019 of 2026 I. Victoria, D/o. Late J.D.Irudayaraj, 24/2, Somasundaram 6th Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023. ... Petitioner Vs

1. S. Udhayakumar S/o J.Shakthivel, No.21,F2, Praneel Anoop Apartments, 5th street, East Banu Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai- 600053.

2. L.Gunaseelan S/o R.Logananthan, No.500, Anjaneyar Kovil St, Arakkonam Tk,Ranipet Dt.

3. P.Vedanayagi D/o Pushparaj, No.143, Mosur Road, Arakonam- 631 001.

4. P.Anna Mary D/o Pushparaj, No.143, Mosur Road,

Arakonam- 631 001, Ranipet District.

5. K.Ravikumar S/o K.Kuppa Naidu, 15/21, Nehruji Nagar 5th St, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt,

6. M.Pranshanthi D/o Munusamy, No.339(1) Raja St, Thanigaipolur, Arakkonam - 631 003 Ranipet District.

7. P.Olivannan S/o P.M.Panjatcharam, M210A, TNHB Jothi Nagar, Arakkonam- 631 003.

8. N.Saravanan, S/o Narayanan, MIG 2/11, TNHB, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

9. T.R.Sowmiya W/o C.S.Sathish Prasad, No.4, Balasubramani Kovil St, Suvalpettai, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

10. C.S.Sathish Prasad, S/o Chandrasekaran, No.4, Balasubramani Kovil St, Suvalpettai, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

11. P.Latha W/o Purushothamman, No.41/24, Town hass 3rd St, Suvalpettai, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

12. Deepa.L No.316, 8th B Cross, Flower Garden, Bangalore North 560 023, Magadi Road, Bangalore, Karnataka State.

13. Premnaath Susila Munirathinam S/o Munirathinam, No.1, Neruji Nagar 5th St, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

14. K.Senthilkumar, S/o Kirubanandam, No.5, Senthil Nagar, Mangammapettai Gate, Vadamambakkam, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

15. Lavanya w/o Logesh, No.22-696/5, Rajaji nagar, Estate CK Palli Po, Chittoor 517 001, Andhra Pradesh

16. G.Kavitha w/o Gopi M-176, TNHB Jothi Nagar Po, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

17. V.Devi W/o Vedvyasan, No.316, Bajanai Kovil St, Kattupakkam 632 502, Nimili Tk, Ranipet Dt.

18. B.S,Padma, W/o Lingamoorthy,

No.133, sholinghar Road, Arakkonam- 631 003, Ranipet Dt.

19. Vadivel S/o M.K.Vasantharayan No.12-139, N.T.R.Nagar, Pudupettai Nagari, Chitoor- 517 590, Andhra Pradesh.

20. Maryrajam Irudayaraj, W/o. Late J.D.Irudayaraj, 24/2, Somasundaram 6th Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

21. I.Immagulate Mary D/o. Late J.D.Irudayaraj, 24/2, Somasundaram 6th Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

22. T.R.Subramanian, S/o. T.S.Ramalinga Mudaliar, 112, Gandhi Road, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District.

23. J.D.Margret Mary, D/o Late J.Dyrianathan, M11/15, TNHB, Jothi Nagar, Arakkonam-7.

24. J.D.Alphonsa Mary, D/o Late J.Dyriranathan, M11/15, TNHB, Jothi Nagar, Arakkonam-7. .. Respondents

RAYER in CRP No. 4715 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 25.08.2025 made in I.A.No.12 of 2025 in O.S.No.158 of 2024 on the file of the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Court, Arakonam. PRAYER in CRP No. 4716 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the petition and order dated 19.03.2025 made in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.S.No.158 of 2024 on the file of the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Court, Arakonam by allowing this Civil Revision Petition. CRP No. 587 of 2026:This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the petition and order dated 19.03.2025 made in IA No.4 of 2025 in OS No.158 of 2024 on the file of the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam by allowing this Civil Revision Petition. CRP No. 589 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order dated 25.08.2025 made in IA No.12 of 2025 in OS No.158 of 2024 on the file of the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam. CMP No. 27019 of 2026: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 340 CR.P.C. read with 195 Cr.P.C., to expedite criminal proceedings by directing a preliminary inquiry into the offences committed by Respondent No.22/4, T.R.Subramanian, the Petitioner, and their associates in OS No.158 of 2024 (formerly OS No.47 of 2015) pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam, file a written complaint before the competent Magistrate.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Manoharan in all CRPs For Respondent(s): Rajeni Ramadass for M/s.Rajeni Associates for R1 and R2 Mr.P.Raja for R5 and R6 in CRP. Nos.4715 & 589 of 2026 for R1 & R2 in CRP. Nos.4716 & 587 of 2026 I.Victoria (Party in person ) (R3) in CRP. No.4715 & 587 of 2026

COMMON ORDER

These revision petitions are at the instance of the third party seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) CRP. No.587 of 2026: Challenging the order passed in I.A. No.4 of 2025, in O.S. No.158 of 2024, dated 19.03.2025 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Arakonam, in and by which the Trial Court had allowed the prayers sought for by the defendants 6 and 7, to cancel the sale deed dated 07.01.2011, in Doc. No.2120 of 2011, executed by the Court in E.P. No.66 of 2016.

(ii) CRP. No.589 of 2026- to set aside the order passed in I.A. No.12 of 2025, in O.S. No.158 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Arakonam, in and by which, the Trial Court has entertained and allowed the Application filed by the defendants 8 to 10, seeking to cancel all registered instruments executed pursuant to sale deed dated 23.08.2017.

(iii) Similarly, other third parties have filed CRP. No.4715 and 4716 of 2026 for the very same reliefs, on the same grounds on which CRP. Nos.587 and 589 of 2026 have been filed.

(iv) As far as CMP. No.27019 of 2026, it has been filed to expedite criminal proceedings by directing a preliminary inquiry into the offences committed by Respondent No.22/4, T.R.Subramanian, the Petitioner, and their associates in OS No.158 of 2024 (formerly OS No.47 of 2015) pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam, file a written complaint before the competent Magistrate.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel revision petitioners in all the revision petitions, Mrs.Rajeni Ramadoss, learned counsel for M/s.Rajeni Associates for the respondents 1 and 2, Mrs.I.Victoria, Party in Person/third respondent and Mr.P.Raja, learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6.

3. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the revision petitions, would firstly contend that the Trial Court has committed a grave error, resulting in miscarriage of justice, by setting aside the registered sale deed, without even given an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved party, viz., the revision petitioners who are admittedly purchasers of portions of the suit property, for valuable sale consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that pursuant to their respective purchasers, the petitioners also put up construction and emphasises the fact that such construction cannot come up overnight and the respondents were fully aware of the factum of physical possession being with third party purchasers and despite the same, no effective steps were taken to challenge the sale deeds in favour of the revision petitioners, before the Competent Civil Court.

4. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioners would also state that even the encumbrance certificate clearly discloses the alienations made in favour of the revision petitioners and behind their back, the respondents have mischievously and fraudulently obtained orders, annulling their sale deeds, which is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice and fair hearing. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:-

(i) Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496;

(ii) Binayak Swain Vs. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi and Another, reported in 1965 SCC Online SC 350;

(iii) Chinnammal and others Vs. P.Arumugham and Another, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 513;

(iv) Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 318; and

(v) Amarsang Nathaji as Himself and as Karta and Manger Vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel and others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 113.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also the third respondent in person, would state that the petitioners are not bonafide purchasers and they have purchased plots pursuant to an exparte decree obtained in a suit for specific performance. According to the third respondent as well as the learned counsel for the other respondents, the suit itself was filed against the dead persons, without bringing to the notice of the Court that the defendants were not alive on the date of the institution of the suit and therefore, the decree for specific performance is clearly vitiated and null and void and not binding on the lawful owners, viz., the respondents. The third respondent, as well as the other counsel appearing for the respondents would also bring to my notice that the third defendant also died soon after the decree came to be passed and therefore, according to the respondents, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners has played fraud and snatched away the valuable properties belonging to the respondents and therefore, there is absolutely no error committed by the Trial Court in passing orders in I.A. Nos.4 and 12 of 2025. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners cannot claim to be bonafide purchasers, since they should have verified whether the decree had been passed against living persons and therefore, today they cannot claim any right in equity. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of all the four revision petitions.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the available material records.

7. Insofar as CMP. No.27019 of 2026, the third respondent in person, states that permission has to be sanctioned to her to prosecute the respondents under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., read with Section 195 of Cr.P.C., since the respondents have all committed perjury and the matter has to be therefore necessarily tried before the Judicial Magistrate. Meeting the relief sought for in this CMP, Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would bring to my notice that for the very same prayer, an Application in I.A. No.28 of 2026, is pending before the Trial Court and therefore, contends that the relief sought for in this application cannot be entertained. As the respondents have already moved the Trial Court, for initiating Criminal Proceedings, by way of perjury against the respondents and the said application is pending enquiry, it is not proper on the part of the third respondent to seek the very same prayer by filing the application in the pending revision petitions. It is always open to the third respondent, or the petitioners who have filed the said application in I.A. No.28 of 2026, to prosecute the same and bring it to a logical conclusion. In the light of the above, I do not see any merit or even any purpose in entertaining CMP. No.27019 of 2026, and the same is dismissed.

8. As far as the revision petitions are concerned, the vendor of the revision petitioners obtained an exparte decree on 17.11.2015 and thereafter, he has sold portions of the suit property to various third party purchasers for consideration. 20 amongst the said purchasers are the revision petitioners herein. The case of the revision petitioners is that they are bonafide purchasers for value and their vendor had been the beneficiary of registered sale deed executed by the competent Civil Court in his favour and therefore, there is absolutely no occasion for the petitioners who doubt the decree in favour of the vendor, necessitating any conduct of any roving investigation or enquiry. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the in all fairness, the purchasers should have been proceeded against and that the reliefs granted in I.A. Nos. 4 and 12 of 2025 ought to have been granted only after issuing notice to the petitioners and in their presence

9. I find considerable force in the arguments of Mr.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. All the petitioners are subsequent transferees, post a decree for specific performance, pursuant to which, a sale deed has been executed in favour of the vendor of the revision petitioners. It may be the case of the respondents that the agreement of sale in favour of the vendor of the petitioners itself was fraudulent in nature and not capable of specifically being enforced. However, they do not dispute the fact that the specific performance suit filed by the vendor of the petitioner by name, T.R.Subramaniam, was decreed on 17.11.2025 and an Application was taken

out by the 5th defendant to set aside the exparte decree in an application to condone a delay of 1416 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. The said application came to be allowed, despite the objection of the first respondent/plaintiff therein viz., the vendor of the petitioner and the delay was condoned by an order dated 07.09.2023. Much later, on 15.07.2025, it also appears that subsequently, suit has been restored to file and thereby the exparte decree for specific performance itself has been set aside. However, the Court ought to have taken note of the fact that between the time the exparte decree was passed and was in force and till such time, it was set aside, since several alienations had taken place, such alienation cannot be annulled or set aside for the mere asking.

10. The Trial Court should have put on notice and called upon, all the purchasers who have purchased portions of the suit property, between the date of decree and the date of setting aside the exparte decree. Without doing so, unfortunately, the Trial Court has allowed applications I.A. No.4 of 2025, and I.A. No.12 of 2025, accepting the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents, without noticing that serious prejudice would be caused to bonafide purchasers, including the revision petitioners, who have invested their hard earned savings especially when they have purchased their respective portions after the decree for specific performance. This cannot strightaway annul the sale deeds, without giving them a fair and reasonable opportunity.

11. In view of the above, the Trial Court has clearly committed an error in allowing I.A. Nos.4 and 12 of 2025, and thereby cancelling the various sale deeds, behind the back of the interested, proper and necessary parties. Even though, as rightly contended by the respondents, the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance has not come forward to contest the application filed to cancel the sale deed, having already alienated the entire suit property to various third party purchasers, it is quite natural and understandable that the plaintiff in the specific performance suit may have lost interest to pursue the litigation, since he has already disposed of the property. The decree has been set aside only after a huge delay of about 1404 days, in even filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. In such circumstances, the orders in I.A. Nos.4 and 12 of 2025 are necessarily to be set aide and the petitioners shall be impleaded as respondents in the said Application and they shall be given an opportunity of hearing including filing of counter and after conducting due enquiry, the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Arakkonam, Ranipet District shall dispose of the Applications in I.A. Nos.4 and 12 of 2025 afresh, considering the oral and documentary evidence, that may be adduced on behalf of both the parties. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, shall endeaver to pass final orders in both Applications on or before 30.04.2027, on merits and in accordance with law.

12. Though several judgments have been cited by Mr.N.Manoharan, I have no quarrel with regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in all the said cases where it has been repeatedly reiterated that the principles of natural justice have to be followed and reasons have to be recorded before passing orders. In any event, I am in entire agreement with the arguments of Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Trial Court clearly committed a grave error in proceedings to set aside the sale deeds without even putting the purchasers from notice.

13. Though the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance challenging the order condoning the delay filed in CRP. No.4840 of 2023, the revision came to be dismissed and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months. Admittedly, subsequently, though the exparte decree was set aside, till date, the suit is still pending and pending the suit, these interlocutory applications came to be filed and disposed of. In the light of the above, in order to do substantial justice to the parties and also give a quietus to the entire lis, while allowing the revision, I direct the petitioners to be permitted to be impleaded as the plaintiffs, since the Plaintiff T.R.Subramaniam, who no longer has any subsisting interest in the suit property, is not any way going to contest the suit, which would only result in dismissal of the suit for non prosecution. However, as purchasers not only bonafide, but also their purchases being lawful on the date of the respective purchases made by the petitioners, since on the date of their respective sale deeds, the decree for specific performance was intact, I permit the plaintiffs/all the revision petitioners to come on record and step into the shoes of the original plaintiff, T.R.Subramanian and prosecute the suit on his behalf. It is however made clear that the petitioners shall not be permitted to seek for any amendment of the plaint and they shall have to stand or fall by the case of their vendor, the plaintiffs, since they are bound by the actions, inactions or omissions of their vendor.

14. In the light of the above, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders dated 25.08.2025 & 19.03.2025 in I.A. Nos.4 and 12 of 2025 are set aside and the learned counsel for the revision petitioners before the Trial Court shall be permitted to amend the plaint, by impleading the revision petitioners as plaintiffs 2 to 20. It is also seen from the records that there is no written statement filed by the defendants, excepting for their applications for condonation of delay and to set aside the exparte decree. Therefore, the defendants shall be entitled to file written statement within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the amended plaint and the newly impleaded purchasers from the original plaintiff, T.R.Subramanian, shall be entitled to file a reply statement within a period of two weeks thereafter. The Trial Court shall frame issues within a period of one (1) week and shall commence trial without any delay. The parties shall cooperate for expeditious trial of the suit and the suit shall be disposed of on merits, and in accordance with law on or before 30.04.2027. The Trial Court shall not insist on any formal application for impleadment or amendment of the plaint and in view of the order, the revision petitioners can straight away be permitted to carry out the amendments to the plaint and filed an amended copy of the plaint, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

15. In the light of the above, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. CMP is dismissed. No costs. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Arakonam.

P.B.BALAJI J. RKP CRP No. 4715 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 10728 OF 2026,CMP NO. 10731 OF 2026,CRP NO. 4716 OF 2026,CMP NO. 20694 OF 2026,CMP NO. 20690 OF 2026,CMP NO. 27019 OF 2026,CRP NO. 587 OF 2026,CRP NO. 589 OF 2026,CMP NO. 3250 OF 2026,CMP NO. 3245 OF 2026 30-09-2026