CRP/4269/2026 of G.JAYALAKSHMI (Deceased) D.Gopal (Deceased) Sathiy Vs K.SANKARA SUBRAMANIYA IYER on 11 September 2026

ORDER

The plaintiff is the revision petitioner aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.622 of

2019 for setting aside the exparte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order dated 16.03.2020 in CRP (NPD) No.3930 of 2019, wherein this Court gave a specific direction to the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur to take up I.A.No.622 of 2019 afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

3. Unfortunately, despite specific direction that I.A.No.622 of 2019 has to be disposed of within a period of twelve weeks from the order being passed as early as on 16.03.2020, strangely, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order in I.A.No.622 of 2019 only on 23.02.2026. There is absolutely no justification for the delay, especially when this Court had directed the application to be disposed of within a period of twelve weeks.

4. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Trial Court has not given any reasons whatsoever and excepting for extracting the arguments on both sides and the order passed by this Court in CRP (NPD) No.3930 of 2019 by order dated 16.03.2020, the Trial Court has not even seen whether any sufficient cause has been shown for the Court to exercise discretion to allow the application under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code. The order, therefore, is clearly perverse and infirm and liable to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent though, brought to my attention a further direction in the order dated 16.03.2020 in CRP (NPD) No.3930 of 2019 at clause iv, where, this Court had directed both parties to co-operate with the trial proceedings and would state that this Court had implied that the trial should be proceeded with and thereby the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code should have been allowed and it is only on the strength of the said direction, the Trial Court has proceeded to allow the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, according to him, there is no infirmity in the order of the trial Court.

6. I am unable to countenance the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent. The direction at clause iv that the parties and their counsel shall cooperate with the trial proceedings does not mean that the trial court can skip the direction at clause ii which required the trial court to take up I.A.No.622 of 2019 and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

P.B.BALAJI.,J sr

7. In the light of the above, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order and decreetal order in I.A.No.622 of 2019 is set aside. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur shall dispose of I.A.No.622 of 2019 within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, without seeking any further extension of time, after giving due opportunity to both the parties to advance arguments and rely on documents and also finding out whether sufficient cause has been shown and whether there has been any delay on the part of the respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11.09.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur