Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2522/2026 of Arumugapillai Vs Senthil Kumar on 15 September 2026
C.R.P(MD)No.2522 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
C.R.P(MD)No.2522 of 2026
and
CMP(MD)No.12586 of 2026
Arumugapillai
through his Power Agent namely,
S.Velmurugan
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Senthil Kumar
2.Ponnazhagu
3.Akbar Ali
4.Abdullah
5.Alamelu
6.V.M.Loganathan
7.The Sub Registrar,
Thirupathur,
Sivagangai District.
..Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC
to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.07.2026 passed in IA.No.
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 01:15:53 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2522 of 2026
11 of 2025 in OS.No.27 of 2019 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai and allow the civil revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji
For Respondents : I.Pinaygash, - for R7
Special Government Pleader
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 has been filed by the revision petitioner against the order dated 24.07.2026 passed in IA.No.11 of 2025 in OS.No.27 of 2019 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.27 of 2019 seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The 1st respondent/1st defendant filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 13.09.2024.
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 01:15:53 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2522 of 2026
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has passed a detailed judgment and decree in the suit in O.S.No.27 of 2019 and the 1st respondent has no right to file a petition to set aside the ex parte decree and instead, has to file an appeal. Therefore, the petitioner prayed to allow the civil revision petition and dismissed the order passed by the trial Court.
4. He further states that the revision petitioner is residing abroad and that he came to India for adducing evidence and incurred huge amount of expenditure and therefore, a sum of Rs.15,000/- fixed by the trial Court towards cost is also not sufficient. The suit was filed by the revision petitioner for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and it was decreed on 13.09.2024. The 1st respondent, who is the 1st defendant, filed a petition in IA.No.11 of 2025 with a prayer to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed against him on 13.09.2024.
5. The respondent further submits that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed IA.No.10 of 2021 to mark
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 01:15:53 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2522 of 2026 additional documents. Against which the respondent’s counsel advised him to file a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court. Believing that the civil revision petition was filed and pending, and that his counsel was attending to the matter, the respondent did not actively follow up the suit. Owing to miscommunication between the respondent and his counsel, neither of them appeared before the trial Court on several hearing dates, resulting in the suit being decreed ex parte on 13.09.2024 and also states that his absence is neither willful nor deliberate and prayed to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed against him.
6. The revision petitioner also annexed B diary, which shows that there was a delay in examining the witnesses on by both sides. However, the trial Court considered the same and allowed petition with a cost of Rs.15,000/-. According to the petitioner, it is very meager.
7. This Court is of the view that the reason stated in the accompanying affidavit seems to be proper and the trial Court, also considering the same in order to provide a fair opportunity and in the
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 01:15:53 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2522 of 2026 interest of justice allowed the petition with the cost of Rs.15,000/-, which seems to be reasonable. However, considering the reason stated by the petitioner that he is in abroad and that he came to India for adducing evidence and incurred huge amount of expenditure, this Court increased the amount from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and hence, this Court modifies the costs amount alone.
8. Since the suit is pending from the year 2019, the 1st respondent/1st defendant is directed to adduce his evidence at the earliest, and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of five
(5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above observation and direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.09.2026 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 01:15:53 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2522 of 2026 To The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai. Copy to
1. The Sub Registrar, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District.
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 01:15:53 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2522 of 2026 R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.2522 of 2026 15.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 01:15:53 pm )