Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2569/2026 of K. Kavitha Vs J. Stephen on 21 September 2026
CRP(MD) No. 2569 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) No. 2569 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011180882026}
in CMP(MD)No.12758 of 2026
K. Kavitha
W/o. Krishnamoorthy,
Door No.49/2,
Shenbagamalar Street,
Ram nagar,
Round road,
Dindigul Town,
Dindigul District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
J. Stephen
S/o. James,
Nallamanayakanpatti,
South Street, Natham Road,
Dindigul Town, Dndigul District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the fair and decreetal order passed with the condition to deposit Rs. 4,00,000/- in I.A. No. 3 of 2025 in O.S. No.
243 of 2020 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, dated 23.07.2026 by allowing this civil revision petition and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Sarvagan Prabhu
CRP(MD) No. 2569 of 2026
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 petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed with the condition to deposit Rs. 4,00,000/- in I.A. No. 3 of 2025 in O.S. No. 243 of 2020 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul dated 23.07.2026.
2. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the above suit. The revision respondent filed the above suit for recovery of money. The original amount alleged to have been borrowed by the revision petitioner is Rs.40 lakhs, and after adding interest, it comes to Rs.52,48,000/-. When the case was posted for filing of the written statement as a last chance on 08.09.2021, the revision petitioner did not file his written statement and was called absent and set ex parte. Thereafter, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on 01.12.2021. Soon after the decree and judgment, the decree-holder filed an execution petition in E.P.No.80 of 2022. After coming to know that an ex parte decree had already been passed against him, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 17.10.2025. The Trial Court allowed the application to set aside the ex parte decree, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposit 10% of the loan amount, namely, Rs.4,00,000/-, before the Court on or before 05.08.2026.
CRP(MD) No. 2569 of 2026
3. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court dated 23.07.2026, the present petition has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court, in its order, discussed that the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Courts, in a catena of decisions, have specifically emphasised that Courts should not approach such applications in a strict manner and should adopt a liberal approach. However, while allowing the application, the Trial Court imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.4,00,000/-. Since the petitioner is hardly in a position to pay the said amount, he is unable to comply with the condition. He further submitted that the petitioner seeks to set aside the ex parte decree only to enable him to contest the case and that the imposition of such a condition is unwarranted. Hence, he prayed for allowing the present petition by setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court dated 23.07.2026.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, it is seen that this is not the first application filed by the revision petitioner. He had already been set ex parte. A perusal of the record shows that this is a suit for recovery of money. The amount involved in the case is
CRP(MD) No. 2569 of 2026 Rs.52,48,000/-. The suit is of the year 2020. Though the matter was posted on 08.09.2021 for filing of the written statement by the revision petitioner as a last chance, he failed to file the same, and an ex parte decree was passed on 01.12.2021. Against the said order, he had already filed a petition in I.A.No.2 of 2022 to set aside the ex parte decree and judgment passed on 01.12.2021, and the said application was allowed on 09.09.2022. He had also filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, and the same was allowed on 15.09.2022. Thereafter, issues were framed, and the plaintiff was examined on 07.03.2024. When the matter was adjourned for cross-examination, the revision petitioner failed to cross-examine the plaintiff and did not even adduce evidence on his side. Therefore, the petitioner was called absent and was again set ex parte, and an ex parte decree was passed on 17.10.2024.
7. Taking into consideration the above circumstances, as well as the serious objection raised by the respondent/plaintiff, and considering the fact that the respondent/plaintiff has already filed an Execution Petition for recovery of the money, which is also pending, and that the suit has been pending for six years, the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, has imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to pay 10% of the decree amount and the said condition is proper and does not warrant any interference. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
CRP(MD) No. 2569 of 2026
8. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DSS To
1. The Principal District Judge, Dindigul.
2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
CRP(MD) No. 2569 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. dss CRP(MD) No. 2569 of 2026 in CMP(MD)No.12758 of 2026 21-09-2026