Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2456/2026 of S. Ramar (Died), 1. S. Arumu Vs S. Palanichamy (Died), 1. Ka on 8 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
C.R.P(MD)No.2456 of 2026
and
C.M.P(MD)No.12156 of 2026
S.Ramar (died)
1.S.Arumugam
2.R.Vasanthi
3.R.Veerakumar
4.R.Veeralakshmi
...Petitioners
Vs.
S.Palanichamy (died)
1.Rangammal
2.Vadivel
3.Veeralakshmi
...Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC
to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 07.02.2026 passed in I.A.No.
1 of 2021 in OS.No.59 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : M/s.L.Vasanthalakshmi
for Mr.S.Madhavan
*****
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 Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 07.02.2026 passed in IA.No.1 of 2021 in OS.No.59 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.
2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 2 to 5. The respondents are the plaintiffs, who filed a suit in OS.No.59 of 2015 seeking for declaration and permanent injunction.
3. According to the 1st petitioner/2nd defendant, he appeared in the main suit when the suit was posted for filing the written statement on 26.10.2016. However, their advocate did not inform them about subsequent proceedings, and therefore, they were set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 12.02.2016. The 1st defendant, Ramar was working at Palani and Coimbatore and due to his employment, the petitioners were not aware of the ex parte decree. Subsequently, the plaintiff died on 09.11.2017 and the first defendant, Ramar, died on 24.10.2016. Thereafter, the petitioners did not contact their Advocate. Subsequently, on 28.06.2021, they received an eviction notice through the Advocate for the respondents. Only then did they came to know about the ex parte decree and therefore, they filed a petition to condone the delay of 1988 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court, against which the present civil revision petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, since they were not residing at the present address and were staying at Coimbatore for their employment purpose, their advocate has not informed them about the ex parte decree and they were not aware of the proceedings in the case. Only upon receiving the notice of eviction, they came to know that an ex parte decree had already been passed against them. Hence, they filed the petition to condone the delay of 1988 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree.
5. The learned counsel further argued that the delay occurred was neither wilful nor wanton, but occurred only because the Advocate had failed to inform the passing of the ex parte decree. Hence, he prayed to condone the delay.
6. On perusal of the petition and order passed by the trial Court, it is seen that the respondents seriously objected by stating that in spite of several adjournments, the petitioners had not filed the written statement and therefore, an ex parte order had already been passed against them on 26.10.2015. Thereafter, an ex parte decree was passed on 12.02.2016 in favor of the plaintiff Palanichamy. Except for stating that their advocate had not informed them about the case details, the petitioners had not stated any acceptable reason for the delay and therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. The trial Court after considering the petition, the counter and also the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners, came to the conclusion that the 1st petitioner was aware of the trial proceedings even during the year 2016. The evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners also disclosed that they used to visit the suit schedule property often. They had further admitted that they were aware of the proceedings of the Court. Therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that both the petitioners were well aware of the ex parte order and ex parte decree. Even after having knowledge of the ex parte decree passed on 12.02.2016, they have not filed any petition to set aside the exparte decree. They filed a petition to condone the delay only after an order for delivery was passed against them. Therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners had not satisfactorily explained the delay to the satisfaction of the Court and dismissed the petition.
8. This Court finds no infirmity in the order of the trial Court. The petitioners cannot merely blame the advocate by stating that they were not informed about the proceedings, but it is their bounden duty to follow the proceedings once the suit had been instituted against them and it is their duty to see whether the case is pending or dismissed. Almost, for the past six years, the petitioners had not taken any steps to set aside the ex parte decree nor had they shown any interest in verifying the status of the case. Merely finding fault with the advocate cannot, by itself constitute a sufficient ground for condoning the delay and the reasons stated have not been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, this Court finds there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and there is no ground to allow the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM To The District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.
R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.2456 of 2026 08.09.2026