CRP(MD)/2367/2026 of Pappa Alias Pitchaiyammal Vs Rajendra Prasad on 1 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner against the fair order and decreetal order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the I Additional District Court, Madurai in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.S.No.283 of 2023.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit is filed by the respondent /plaintiff for declaration, recovery of possession, permanent injunction and for mesne profits.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent /plaintiff, had purchased the suit property from the husband of the revision petitioner, and therefore he sought for a declaration, recovery of possession, permanent injunction and for mesne profits.

4. He would further submit that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the 2nd and 3rd floor of the suit property and now she is aged about 76 years and due to her ill health and old age, she was not able to contest the suit and therefore, an ex parte order was passed against her on 28.08.2024. Subsequently, ex parte decree was also passed on 09.12.2024.

5. He would further submit that the petitioner was hospitalized in Rajaji Hospital on 16.08.2024 and was discharged on 04.09.2024. Thereafter, due to her ill-health, she took bed rest and approached her counsel, after receiving the EP notice for delivery of possession. She has now filed the written statement also. The delay was neither wanton nor wilful. Thereafter, she filed a petition to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that she had not filed any proof to show that she was not feeling well, and she had not sufficiently explained the delay of each day to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, the petition was dismissed. Against which, she filed the present civil revision petition to set aside the order of the trial Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the children of the revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.128 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District Court, Madurai, claiming that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of one Gopal, father of the defendants 3 to 6, Sridhar, Shanti, Selvi and Meenal. Hence, they have filed a suit for Partition in respect of the suit property claiming 4/5th share in the suit property. The said suit was decreed on 31.07.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has filed an appeal in A.S(MD)No.199 of 2019 on the file of this Court and the appeal was allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.128 of 2007. Against which the children of the petitioner have also preferred SLP Diary No.35558 of 2023 and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, the present respondent filed a suit for declaration and recovery of the possession.

7. It is further submitted that the revision petitioner alone had not appeared. Though she stated that she was admitted to the hospital, she had not produced any medical certificate before the trial Court to show that she was unwell. It is further contended that the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings without any valid reasons. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

8. The present revision petitioner filed an affidavit stating that the suit was originally posted on 20.08.2024 for filing the written statement. The Advocate requested her to give instructions for filing written statement. Thereafter, the Advocate informed her that he was not in station and asked her to come to the Court. At that time, she suddenly fell ill and was admitted in Government Rajaji Hospital and was discharged only on 04.09.2024. Thereafter, she informed the Advocate about her illness and he asked her to come to the office, after she had recovered. Subsequently, she received notice on 13.06.2025 directing her to appear before the Execution Court in EP.No.48 of 2025. Thereafter, she went to the office of the Advocate, where she was informed that he was not in town. She then enquired about the status of the case with the junior advocate, who informed her that she had already been set ex parte in the main suit. Therefore, she filed a petition through the present advocate and stated that her absence was neither willful nor deliberate, and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

9. On perusal of the records, it is seen that this is the second round of litigation. Except the petitioner/1st defendant, all other defendants appeared and contested the case. The petitioner admits that she received the summons. However, she states that she was admitted to the hospital, for which no supporting document has been produced to show that she was unwell. Further, she is waited till the EP proceedings and that only after the petitioner filed an EP for recovery of possession, she filed the present petition. She has not stated any acceptable reason for the delay of two years delay in filing the set aside petition.

10. Once the petitioner approaches the Court for condonation of the delay, it is her duty to explain each day with sufficient cause acceptable to the Court of law. However, she has not satisfactorily explained the delay, except by stating that she was admitted to the hospital. The trial Court after considering the above aspects, has clearly held that the petitioner was originally called absent and set ex parte on 28.04.2024 and subsequently, the suit was posted on 06.09.2024 for ex parte evidence. Thereafter, on various hearings, the case was posted for ex parte evidence. The ex parte evidence was recorded on 15.11.2024 and finally, the judgment was pronounced on 09.12.2024. The petitioner also relied upon the judgment in S.Arul Dhas Vs. F.Huber and another reported in 2015 (3) LW 241 related to ex parte judgment which was passed without any discussion and the trial Court further held that the exparte judgment was passed having detailed discussion and that it is the duty of the petitioner to explain the delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of the Court. But the petitioner had failed to satisfactorily explain the reason stated in the petition to condone the delay. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the petition. This Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

01.09.2026 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM To The I Additional District Court, Madurai.

R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.2367 of 2026 01.09.2026