CRP(MD)/2782/2025 of Seiyad Ali Vs Star Jeyalet on 8 September 2026

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 05-08-2025 passed in E.A.No.02 of 2024 in E.P.No.05 of 2022 in O.S.No.535 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.

2. The revision petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.535 of 2010, which was instituted by the first and second respondents/plaintiffs seeking demarcation of the suit property and a consequential decree of injunction.

3. The petitioner/second defendant contends that he purchased the suit property from the power of attorney agent of the original vendor, namely, Vijay Kumar. He further states that respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs had instituted the suit against the said Vijay Kumar seeking demarcation of the suit property and consequential injunction. However, the said Vijay Kumar remained ex parte in the suit, and consequently, an ex parte decree was passed against him, directing demarcation of the suit property. Subsequently, the respondents/plaintiffs filed an Execution Petition seeking execution of the said decree. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the original vendor, Vijay Kumar, died. Therefore, the petitioner/second defendant was impleaded as a party to the execution proceedings.

4. When the matter was posted for filing the counter, the petitioner, due to personal reasons and as he was engaged in making arrangements for his son's marriage, was unable to file the counter within the stipulated time. Consequently, he was set ex parte. Thereafter, within a period of 30 days, she filed a petition seeking to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. However, the trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that he had not produced any documentary evidence in support of the reasons stated for his non-appearance. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the respondents had already instituted a suit seeking demarcation of the property and that the said suit was decreed on 21.03.2012. Subsequently, the defendant, through his power agent, sold the property to the present revision petitioner on 30.03.2012. When the respondents initiated execution proceedings, the revision petitioner was impleaded as a party, as his vendor had died. The learned counsel further submitted that the Execution Petition was posted for filing of the counter on 01.08.2024. However, the revision petitioner failed to file his counter and did not appear before the Court. Consequently, on 01.08.2024, he was set ex parte. Thereafter, the revision petitioner came forward with the present petition seeking to set aside the ex parte order. The learned counsel also relied upon Order IX Rule

7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that where the hearing of a suit has been adjourned ex parte against a defendant and, at or before the next hearing, the defendant appears and assigns sufficient cause for his previous non- appearance, the Court may, upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it deems fit, permit him to be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the petitioner had not assigned any sufficient or bona fide reason for his non- appearance before the trial Court. Though the petitioner had stated that he was engaged in the marriage arrangements of his son and, therefore, was unable to appear before the Court or contact his counsel, the said reason, according to the respondents, did not constitute sufficient cause for his non-appearance. Hence, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, and no interference is warranted with the order passed by the trial Court. It was further submitted that the petitioner had already instituted a separate suit in O.S.No.27 of 2025 seeking to set aside the decree passed in the present suit on the ground that the same is null and void. Having already chosen to challenge the decree by way of a separate suit, the petitioner cannot simultaneously pursue the present proceedings. In other words, the petitioner cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter. On this ground also, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

8. The petitioner was not a party to the suit in O.S.No.535 of 2010. The said suit for demarcation was instituted against his vendor and, only after the death of the said vendor, the petitioner was impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Since the petitioner failed to file his counter, he was set ex parte on 01.08.2024. Thereafter, within 30 days from the date of the ex parte order, the petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside the same, stating that he was unable to appear before the Court and file his counter due to his son's marriage. However, the trial Court, upon considering the reasons assigned by the petitioner, found that he had not produced any documentary evidence or other supporting material to substantiate the said reason. Consequently, the trial Court held that the reason assigned by the petitioner was not sufficient and dismissed the petition.

9. This Court is of the view that, though the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the reason assigned for his non-appearance, the reason stated by him, namely, that he was engaged in connection with his son's marriage, appears to be a bona fide and sufficient reason. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner had approached the trial Court immediately and filed the petition within 30 days from the date of the ex parte order. If an opportunity is not afforded to the petitioner to contest the proceedings, he would be deprived of an opportunity to put forth his defence. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to afford a fair opportunity to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition, subject to terms. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of failure to pay the said amount within the stipulated period, the present petition shall stand dismissed automatically, without any further reference to this Court. On payment of the said amount within the stipulated time, the trial Court shall proceed with the matter and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a short period, in accordance with law.

10. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the parties and the fact that the suit is of the year 2010, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of restoration, subject to the petitioner complying with the condition imposed by this Court.

11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.09.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns To

1. The Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai,

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R.POORNIMA

, J. Ns C.R.P(MD)No.2782 of 2025 08.09.2026