Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/646/2023 of LAKSHMI Vs DURAIYAN on 30 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 646 of 2023
{CNR: HCMD010263342023}
Case QR
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3001 of 2023
LAKSHMI
...Petitioner
Vs.
DURAIYAN
...Respondent
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, to allow this civil revision petition and set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.976 of 2018 in O.S.No.181
of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul dated 21-12-2022.
For Petitioner
: Mr. C.K.M.Appaji
For Respondent
: Mr. R.Narayanan
*****
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
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 21.12.2022 passed in IA.No.976 of 2018 in OS.No.181 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul.
2. The petitioner is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff, who filed a suit for the relief of specific performance, in which the defendant was called absent and set ex parte. Subsequently, an ex parte decree was passed against the defendant on 11.01.2018. Since the petitioner’s husband is working in Sewage waste dumping area, the petitioner accompanied her husband to assist his work and was not in a position to advise her advocate to proceed further. Only after coming to her native, she came to know that an ex parte decree has already been passed against her. Therefore, she filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree along with the application to condone the delay of 296 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 11.01.2018.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the suit properties are worth about more than Rs.15 lakhs and the alleged agreement was entered into between the parties for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and the petitioner states that she has not entered into any agreement and if she is not permitted to defend the case, she will be put into great hardship. Therefore, prayed to allow the petition.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent is also present. He submitted that the sale agreement between the parties was entered into on 02.04.2015 and that the plaintiff filed the suit on 15.04.2017. The petitioner entered appearance through a counsel, and the suit was posted on several occasions for filing the written statement and was lastly posted on 18.12.2017. However, the petitioner failed to file the written statement. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff was examined, and an ex parte decree was passed on 11.01.2018. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P. No. 213 of 2018 for execution of the decree, and the sale deed was also executed in his favour on 20.11.2018. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P. No. 57 of 2019 for delivery of possession. Despite being fully aware that the suit was pending, the petitioner deliberately remained ex parte. Even after the execution of the sale deed, when the matter was posted for delivery of possession, the petitioner filed the present petition only with a view to protract the proceedings. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. While the CRP was admitted, an order of interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of four weeks. Since the petitioner has not deposited the money, the interim stay granted by this Court has already been vacated.
7. On perusal of records, it is seen that an ex parte decree alone was passed and now the petitioner states that the value of the property is also more than that of the agreement entered into between the parties and it is a dwelling house. The petitioner states that if she is given an opportunity, she is ready to contest the suit, at the earliest, without any delay. It is the duty of the Court to provide a fair opportunity to the party to participate in the suit. It is the delay of 296 days and it is not an enormous day. The petitioner also stated that she was not in town and that without providing an opportunity, the suit was decreed ex parte. In the interest of natural justice, it is the duty of the Court to provide fair opportunity to the parties. Hence, in order to provide one more chance to the petitioner/defendant, to contest the case, the order of the trial Court is set aside subject to the condition of payment of entire amount. Hence, the petitioner is hereby directed to deposit the entire amount into the trial Court.
8. The petitioner admitted in his written statement that she had received sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent/ plaintiff and was ready to pay the money with interest at the rate of 1% per annum.
9. Therefore, the petitioner is hereby directed to deposit the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with accrued interest at the rate of 1% per annum from the date of suit, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petition will be dismissed automatically.
10. With the above directions, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11. In the mean time, there shall be an order of status quo.
12. Post the matter on 15.10.2026 for “reporting compliance”.
30.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM To The Principal Sub Court, Dindigul.
R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.646 of 2023 30.09.2026