Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2534/2026 of Natarajan Vs A.1601, SRIVILLIPUTHUR WEAVE on 16 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2534 of 2026
and
C.M.P(MD)No.12652 of
{CNR: HCMD011143872026}
Case QR
1. Natarajan
... Petitioner(s)
- Vs. -
1. A.1601, Srivilliputhur Weavers,
Co-Operative Production and Sale Society Ltd, Srivilliputhur, Represented by its President.
2. A.1601, Srivilliputhur Weavers,
Co-Operative Production and Sale Society Ltd, Srivilliputhur, Represented by its Director.
... Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Srivilliputtur in I.A.No.5 of 2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.176 of 2015 and thus render justice.
For Petitioner
:Mr.Packiyamuthu
for Mr.Gowtham Sarathy
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 is filed against the order dated 20.04.2026 passed in IA.No.5 of 2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.176 of 2015 passed by the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Srivilliputtur.
2. Originally, the revision petitioner was the defendant, and the respondents were the plaintiffs in the suit filed for recovery of possession.
3. When the suit was posted for hearing on 23.06.2022, the plaintiff/respondent was not present, and consequently, the suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent filed a petition to condone the delay of 800 days in filing the petition to set aside the order of dismissal. The said petition was allowed on 01.09.2025, subject to the condition that the respondent/petitioner should pay a cost of Rs.500/- on or before 25.09.2025. However, the plaintiff/respondent failed to pay the said cost within the stipulated time and subsequently filed another petition on 16.10.2022 seeking extension of time for payment of the cost, which was allowed.
4. The petitioner/defendant contended that, in the first instance, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a petition to set aside the order of dismissal after a delay of two and a half years. Though the trial court allowed the petition for condonation of delay, the respondents/plaintiffs failed to comply with the condition imposed therein regarding the payment of the cost. After a lapse of 21 days, they filed a petition seeking extension of time for payment of the said cost. It was further contended that the respondents/plaintiffs had deliberately delayed the proceedings and failed to comply with the order passed by the trial court within the stipulated time. Hence, the petitioner/defendant contended that the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
6. The reasons stated in the petition would show that, in the B-Diary extract, the portion of the order directing the payment of costs of Rs.500/- was inadvertently omitted. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondent was not aware of the said direction and, consequently, was not able to pay the cost within the stipulated time. Subsequently, while perusing the order, he came to know that the petition had been allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- on or before 25.09.2025. Thereafter, he filed the petition seeking extension of time for payment of the said cost. The trial court, after considering the reasons stated by the plaintiff, allowed the said petition. It is further stated that if the respondent/plaintiff is not permitted to proceed with the matter, he would be put to great hardship and prejudice.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the reasons stated by the respondent appears to be genuine. The trial court, after considering the circumstances of the case, allowed the petition in the interest of justice. This Court finds no valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is upheld, and this petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16.09.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns To
1. The Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.
2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
R.POORNIMA
, J. Ns CRP(MD) NO. 2534 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.12652 of 2026 16.09.2026