Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2310/2026 of Periyasamy Vs Armstrong Fernando on 1 September 2026
CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01/09/2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2026
and
CMP(MD)No.11232 of 2026
1.Periyasamy
2.Palanivel
3.Annadurai : Petitioner/Defendants 2 to 4
Vs.
Armstrong Fernando : Respondent/Plaintiff PRAYER: This Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul, dated 22/07/2026 made in IA No.2 of 2025 in OS No.
311 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul.
For Petitioners
: Mr.T.Vadivelan
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.
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order. dated 22/07/2026 passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul, in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.311 of 2022.
CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2026
2. The petitioners state that the suit in O.S.No.311 of 2022 was filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff seeking a declaration that the sale deed standing in the name of the 2nd defendant executed by the plaintiff and registered as Document No.4389 of 2010, dated 27/04/2010, is null and void, and also seeking a declaration that the sale deed standing in the name of the 4th defendant, executed by the 3rd defendant and registered as Document No.4692 of 2021, dated 10/03/2021, is null and void, and also seeking a declaration that the sale deed standing in the name of the 3rd defendant by the 2nd defendant and registered as document No.3222 of 2018, dated 27/06/2018 is null and void and for a consequential injunction.
3. The petitioners are defendants 2 to 4. They did not appear before the trial Court due to miscommunication between them and their counsel. Therefore, they could not appear and file their written statement within the prescribed time, and consequently, they were set ex-parte. Thereafter, they engaged another counsel, appeared before the Court and filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte order.
CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2026
4. The respondent/plaintiff contested the said petition stating that there was no proper explanation for the failure to file the written statement within the prescribed time. Considering the same, the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners had not stated any valid reason for not filing the written statement and had also not produced any document to substantiate their contention. The trial Court further observed that the petition had been filed belatedly, after a period of three years from the date of the ex-parte order. In the meantime, the plaintiff was examined as PW1, Exs.A1 to A9 were marked and the plaintiff's side evidence was closed.
5. On verification of the records, it is seen that defendants 2 to 4 were set ex-parte on 17/10/2022 and they had not taken any steps thereafter to set aside the ex-parte order. The trial had commenced and the plaintiff's side evidence had also been closed and certain documents had been marked on his side. Though the petitioners have stated that there was miscommunication between them and their counsel, it is the duty of the parties to follow up the proceedings before the Court and they cannot solely blame their counsel. However, the ex-parte order was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the
CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2026 suit. If the petitioners are not permitted to contest the suit and adduce evidence, they would be put to irreparable loss and hardship.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. However, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the respondent/plaintiff towards costs on or before 16/09/2026. If the petitioners fail to pay the said costs within the stipulated time, this Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed automatically.
7. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit without any further delay and conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are further directed not to seek any unnecessary adjournments and to extend their full cooperation for the expeditious disposal of the suit.
CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2026
8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed on the above terms. The order dated 22/07/2026 made in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No. 311 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul, is set aside. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
9. Post on 18/09/2026 for reporting compliance.
01.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No er Note:Issue order copy on 02/09/2026
CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. er To, The Principal Sub Court, Dindigul.
CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2026 01/09/2026