CRP/2663/2026 of M.Sridhar Vs Mylathal on 31 August 2026

COMMON ORDER

The defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No.230 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Pollachi, are the revision petitioners.

2. CRP. No.2663 of 2026, has been filed challenging the order in I.A. No.6 of 2023, seeking restoration of the application in I.A. No.4 of 2022, which was dismissed for default, on 18.04.2023. CRP. No.2656 of 2026, has been filed by the very same defendants 2 and 3, challenging the dismissal of I.A. No.7 of 2023, which was filed by the petitioners to restore I.A. No.5 of 2022, which was dismissed for default on 18.04.2023.

3. I have heard Mr.S.Thankasivan, for Mr.V.Raja, learned counsel for the petitioners in both these revisions and Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, for Mr.Basu K.Balaiyanantham, learned counsel for the respondents in both these revisions.

4. Mr.S.Thankasivan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would state that the suit in O.S. No.230 of 2011, was filed by the respondent for substantial reliefs of declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners' father who was arrayed as first defendant had entered appearance and was contesting the suit by filing his written statement. However, for reasons beyond the control of the defendants, the suit came to be decreed exparte on 23.09.2014. He would further state that thereafter, several applications have been filed seeking to set aside the exparte decree to restore applications that have been dismissed for non prosecution and also for condonation of delay in re-presenting the Interlocutory Applications.

5. Mr.Thankasivan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would further state that the petitioners have been deprived of a fair opportunity to defend the suit on merits and on technical considerations, the Trial Court has dismissed the Applications, adopting a hyper-technical approach. He would therefore pray for the revision petition being allowed, so that the petitioners would be afforded a fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits.

6. Per contra, Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would state that the entire trajectory of the case, right from the date of the exparte decree, way back on 23.09.2014, would by itself expose the callous attitude of the petitioners and the total indifference in diligently prosecuting the matter. Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel would therefore state that the petitioners are not entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Act and rightly, the Trial Court has dismissed the Applications giving the valid reasons which do not require interference in revision.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and I have also gone through the orders impugned in the present revision petition.

8. Insofar as the Order IX, Rule 9 CPC, filed by the petitioners to restore I.A. Nos.4 & 5 of 2022, I find that having filed an Application in I.A. Nos.4 & 5 of 2022, the petitioners have not taken steps to even serve notice of hearing and the same resulted in dismissal of the application for default, on 18.04.2023. The petitioners' case was that his Counsel was not keeping good health and was taking medical treatment and only under such circumstances, the notice was not served on the plaintiff's Counsel and in the meantime, the petitioners were under the impression that the matter was being taking care of by their Counsel. However, the petitioners state that only when they met their Counsel on 26.04.2023, they were informed that I.A. Nos.4 & 5 of 2022, had been dismissed for default on 18.04.2023 itself. In order to restore I.A. No.5 of 2022, I.A. No.7 of 2023, was filed.

9. The Trial Court, on enquiry and perusal of Court records found that even the Application to set aside the exparte decree, was sought to be represented with huge delay of 1670 days and both the said condone delay application as well as the application to set aside the exparte decree were dismissed for default and to restore the same alone, I.A. Nos.4 & 5 of 20222 were filed. These applications were also dismissed for default on 18.04.2023 and to restore the said Applications, I.A. Nos.6 and 7 of 2023, have been filed. The Trial Court has rendered a categorical finding that the petitioners are not even interested in prosecuting the suit and all these attempts are only to drag the proceedings to prevent the respondent/plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of the decree.

10. The Trial Court also found that the span of litigation had already consumed closed to 13 years and in order to establish the delay of 1670 days was only because of sufficient cause, also, no materials have been produced on the side of the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners had not filed any medical records to substantiate the reasons assigned for the delay and also necessitating to take out the Applications to restore the Interlocutory Applications to file. The Trial Court has found that right from the date of the decree, the petitioners have been allowing the petitions to be dismissed for default and have been in the habit of thereafter, filing subsequent restoration Applications, which exposed their conduct, lack of diligence and absence of bonafides.

11. I do not see the findings arrived at by the Trial Court to be illegal or perverse. The findings are rendered on pleadings and materials available on record and I do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the applications in I.A. Nos.6 and 7 of 2023, warranting interference in these revisions.

P.B.BALAJI, J.

12. Accordingly, both these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. 31.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The District Munsif Court, (DMC), Pollachi, Coimbatore District. CRP. Nos.2663 & 2656 of 2026