Madras High Court
CRP/3658/2025 of A. MOHAMED IQBAL Vs MOHAMED ISMAIL on 27 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.08.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No.3658 of 2025
& CMP.No.19651 of 2025
A.Mohamed Eqbal
..Petitioner
Vs
M.C.Balasubramanian (Deceased)
Noo Jahan (Died)
1.Mohamed Ismail
2.Abdul Kareem
3.A.Sainaba
4.A.Pasila
5.A.Hameem
6.B.Senthilkumar
7.B.Sankar
..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order dated 17.04.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.2223 of 2013 on the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner:
For Respondents:
Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja
No appearance
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 revision petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 17.04.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.2223 of 2013 on the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The respondents, despite service of notice, have not chosen to enter appearance in the revision petition.
3. I have heard Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
4. The revision petitioner is the 4th defendant in O.S.No.2223 of 2013. The suit came to be decreed ex-parte and seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree, I.A.No.1 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner.
5. The case of the revision petitioner is that his mother was entrusted with the case, since her children were all abroad and they were not in a position to come down from Saudi Arabia, to attend the case. Further, their mother, in the meantime, had suffered loss of memory and she was taking treatment for Dementia and she also passed away subsequently. The petitioners were in dark about the ex-parte decree and they came to know about the ex-parte decree only in 2019 and immediately, they have taken out an application to set aside the ex- parte decree, along with Section 5 application, seeking condonation of delay.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, pointing out to the impugned order, would state that none of the reasons assigned by the petitioner have even been considered by the Trial Court and the Trial Court has held that the petitioners have not diligently contested the suit also. In this regard, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had, in fact, filed a written statement and only on account of his avocation in Saudi Arabia, he had to go away, entrusting the matter to his mother.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also invite my attention to the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application and despite sufficient cause being shown, without even any discussion whatsoever, the Trial Court has non suited the petitioner, on the ground that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. In the present revision also, I find that none of the contesting respondents have entered appearance.
8. On going through the impugned order, I am in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is not even addressing the cause that has been shown by the petitioner and in a summary manner, the Trial Court has dismissed the application, by merely recording a finding that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause and has not diligently followed the suit.
9. It is incumbent on the Court while deciding a Section 5 application to look into the reasons assigned by the applicant seeing condonation of delay and to render a finding as to whether such reasons would satisfy the expression
‘sufficient cause’ as found in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said exercise has admittedly not been done. None of the reasons assigned by the petitioner had even been recorded, leave alone being discussed and rejected by the Trial Court. In the light of the above and also taking in account that the respondents are not before this Court, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
10. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 17.04.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.2223 of 2013 on the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for conducting a fresh enquiry and thereafter, decide the application, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs (after putting the respondents/plaintiffs on notice, if required). The said exercise shall be concluded by 30.11.2026. It shall be open to the petitioner to lead oral and documentary evidence, if so advised. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 27.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA
P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA To The IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. CRP No.3658 of 2025 27.08.2026