Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2434/2026 of T.Rengaraj Vs 1. S.Sankar(died) 2. S. Palr on 3 September 2026
C.R.P(MD)No.2434 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2434 of 2026
T.Rengaraj
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.S.Sankar (died)
2.S.Palraj
3.S.Samiyaiya
4.Marikannu
5.Vaitheeswaran
...Respondents
(Respondents 4 and 5 are brought on record as Lrs. of the deceased 1st respondent vide Court order dated 03.08.2026
made in CMP(MD)No.19035 to 19037 of 2025)
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 19.04.2023
passed in IA.No.309 of 2021 in O.S.No.38 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 03:30:29 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2434 of 2026
For Petitioner
: Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
For Respondents : Mr.C.Narendran – for R2
Mr.M.Rajarajan – for R3
*****
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 is filed against the order dated 19.04.2023 passed in IA.No.309 of 2021 in O.S.No.38 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of recovery of possession and permanent injunction. He states that the suit was originally posted on 11.04.2018 for the petitioner’s appearance. On that day, the petitioner was affected by jaundice and having undergone native treatment, was not able to appear before the trial Court. The petitioner states that he came to know only recently that the suit had been dismissed for default on 11.04.2018. Hence, he filed an application to restore the suit with a delay of 1222 days and prayed that the said application be allowed.
( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 03:30:29 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2434 of 2026
3. Before the trial Court, the third respondent filed counter, which was adopted by the respondents 1 and 2, strongly opposed the petition filed by petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner had neither mentioned the date of ill-ness nor produced any document as evidence in support of his contention.
4. The trial Court held that the issues in the suit were originally framed on 22.02.2018 and that the suit was posted for trial on 12.03.2018. Thereafter, it was again posted on 17.03.2018, 23.03.2018 and subsequently, posted on 04.04.2018, for trial. The suit was thereafter posted on 11.04.2018 and on that day also, the petitioner/plaintiff failed to commence the trial by adducing evidence and therefore, the suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition to condone the delay of 1222 days in filing the application to restore the suit.
5. The only reason stated by the petitioner is that he was affected by jaundice and not in a position to adduce evidence. Since the reason stated by the petitioner is not sufficiently explained, the trial Court dismissed the petition.
( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 03:30:29 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2434 of 2026
6. The petitioner after a lapse of four years from the date of dismissal order, filed a petition seeking restoration of the suit. The only reason assigned by the petitioner for his non appearance was that he was affected by jaundice. However, no satisfactory explanation had been afforded for the inordinate delay of nearly four years in seeking restoration of the suit before the trial Court. Since he failed to avail himself of the opportunity and remained absent, the suit came to be dismissed. The reason assigned by the petitioner for his absence, even if accepted, does not satisfactorily explain the prolonged delay in filing the petition. In the absence of any sufficient and convincing explanation the trial Court was justified in dismissing the petition. This Court also finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. There is no merit in this civil revision petition.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed in the admission stage itself. No costs.
03.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM
( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 03:30:29 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2434 of 2026 To The District Munsif Court, Keeranur.
( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 03:30:29 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2434 of 2026 R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.2434 of 2026 03.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 03:30:29 pm )