CRP(MD)/2406/2026 of V.Amosh Pakkiyanadhan Vs Paulraj on 1 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner against the fair order and decreetal order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District in IA.No.1 of 2024 in OS.No.4 of 2021.

2. The petitioner is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. In the suit, the petitioner was entered appearance through his counsel. The suit was posted for filing written statement. The petitioner was not able to file his written statement in time, an ex parte order was passed on 14.09.2022 and thereafter, the Court examined the plaintiff’s side evidence and passed an ex parte decree on 06.03.2023. The respondent filed EP.No.72 of 2023 and the petitioner entered appearance and it was posted on 22.08.2024 for filing counter. At that moment, the petitioner filed a petition to condone the delay of 424 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the above suit.

3. According to the petitioner, he is working in Chennai and due to his work pressure, he could not get leave and therefore, he was not able to appear and file the written statement in time. The petitioner further states that he has not received any money from the defendant and a false case has been filed against him and therefore, prayed to condone the delay.

4. The trial Court stated that the delay was not sufficiently explained and the reason stated in the petition is vague and therefore, dismissed the petition by holding that the petitioner has not stated any bona fide reason to condone the delay and the petitioner has not explained the delay even for a single day with sufficient cause. Against which the present civil revision petition is filed.

5. The respondent appeared and strongly objected by stating that the petitioner after knowing that the suit was filed for recovery of money on 25.08.2021, the petitioner did not come forward to file his written statement and remained ex parte, till the EP was filed by the respondent. After coming to know that steps were being taken to execute the sale deed, in order to protract the proceedings, the petitioner has come forward and filed this petition and hence, prayed to dismiss the civil revision petition.

6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment in Chitravel Vs. Jothimani reported in 2024(2) CTC 197, wherein, paragraph Nos.12 and 18 held as follows : “12. No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have repeatedly held that the length of delay is immaterial, however, the applicant, who seeks condonation of delay, has to show sufficient or just cause. Such proof of sufficient or just cause is a pre- condition for entertaining the application for condonation of delay. The discretion to allow an application for condonation of delay is different from the satisfaction of the requirements of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The discretion cannot be exercised by a Court when the applicant seeking condonation of delay is unable to satisfy the Court that he had just or sufficient cause for not approaching the Court earlier and that the delay was occasioned beyond his control, there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or any lack of bonafides. If the applicant is able to show and satisfy the

Court, the absence of the above militating factors, then he is entitled to discretion being exercised in his favour .” and states that since the petitioner has not sufficiently explained the reason stated, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in Ranganatha Iyengar Vs. Thangarasu reported in 2008(5) CTC 628, wherein, paragraph No.12 has held as follows : “12. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that twice exparte decree was passed against the revision petitioner / D2 and on filing applications, the exparte decrees already passed on two different dates have been set aside and learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / D2 before the trial court reported no instructions and further, the petitioner herein was also called absent, hence, he was set exparte and the exparte decree was passed by the court below. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the preliminary decree, final decree application was also filed and in the final decree application, notice was served on the revision petitioner, who was the second defendant in the suit. However, due to the non-appearance, final decree was also passed on 09.09.2003. Then only, the petitioner herein has come forward with the application to condone the delay of 532 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte preliminary decree. Therefore, the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.” Since the petitioner could not appear due to his employment. If the property is conveyed, he will be put into hardship. The petitioner has not received any money and his non-appearance was neither willful nor wanton and prayed to condone the delay and allow the civil revision petition.

8. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

9. When the suit was posted for filing written statement, the petitioner has not filed his written statement and was set ex parte on 14.09.2022. Thereafter ex parte decree was passed on 06.03.2023 and there was a delay of 424 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The amount involved in this case seems to be Rs.1,30,000/-. The respondent has taken steps to sell the property belonging to the petitioner by way of auction to recover the money. If the petitioner is not provided with an opportunity, he will be put into hardship. In the interest of justice and in order to give a fair opportunity to the petitioner, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 is set aside with a condition that the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000/- before the trial Court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed with a condition that the petitioner/defendant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.4 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Srivilliputtur, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner has not deposited the money, the civil revision petition will be dismissed automatically. 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.2406 of 2026 01.09.2026