Madras High Court
CRP/5379/2026 of P.Devaraj Vs K.P.Ponnusamy on 10 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-09-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 5379 of 2026 and CMP No.23344 of 2026
1. P.Devaraj
S/o.Ponnusamy Goundar, Thottipalayam,
Muthur Village, Kangeyam Tk., Tiruppur
Dist.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. K.P.Ponnusamy
S/o.Palanisamy Goundar,
Periyakaradupalayam, Muthur Village,
Kangeyam Tk., Tiruppur Dist.
Ponnusamy Goundar (died)
Moorthy (died).
2.M.Leelavathy
W/o.Late Moorthy, Rest.at Thottipalayam, Muthur Village, Kangeyam Tk., Tiruppur Dist.
3.Minor M.Karthiga
D/o.Late Moorthy, Minor rep by next friend and Natural Guardian their mother M.Leelavathy, Rest.at Thottipalayam, Muthur Village, Kangeyam Tk., Tiruppur Dist.
4.Minor M.Gokul
S/o.Late Moorthy, Minor rep by next friend and Natural Guardian their mother M.Leelavathy, Rest.at Thottipalayam,
Muthur Village, Kangeyam Tk., Tiruppur
Dist.
5.P.Lakshmi
W/o.Late Ponnusamy Goundar, Rest.at
Thottipalayam, Muthur Village, Kangeyam
Tk., Tiruppur Dist.
Cause Title accepted vide order of Court dated 14.08.2026 made in CMP No.22063
of 2026)
Respondent(s)
Revision filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2002 made in O.S.No.99 of 1989 on the file of Subordinate Court, Dharapuram.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.P.K.Gowtham
For Respondent(s):
No appearance
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 respondents have all been served and their names are also printed in the cause list. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the second defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner. A decree came to be passed in O.S.No.99 of 1989 on 21.11.2002. The 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the father representing the minor children. The said suit came to be decreed exparte on 21.11.2002. Taking me through the judgment, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would state that the judgment is a non-speaking one and not in compliance with Order XX Rules 4 and 5 of Civil Procedure Code. He would also state that the plaintiff himself has moved an application for amendment of the decree in O.S.No.99 of 1989 on 22.11.2002 and the said application is being contested by the revision petitioner and others.
3. I am unable to entertain the revision challenging the judgment and decree passed way back on 21.11.2002 on the ground that it is a non-speaking one. The proper remedy that would have been open to the revision petitioner was to challenge the said non-speaking judgment by preferring an appeal or atleast canvas the same in an application to set aside the exparte decree, This Court has already settled the legal position with regard to the non-availability of a ground of challenge under Article 227 of Constitution of India at the stage of condonation of delay. Be that as it may, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, today, the plaintiff himself has sought for amendment of the decree and therefore, if and any amended decree is passed in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff, that would certainly give rise to a fresh cause of action for challenging the decree at the instance of the revision petitioner.
P.B.BALAJI.,J sr
4. Giving such liberty, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. 10.09.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To The Subordinate Court, Dharapuram