CRP/4887/2026 of K.Prakash Garu Vs Sisa World on 25 August 2026

COMMON ORDER

Heard Mr.Jeremiah Gregory John, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.P.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The proceedings arise out of an order passed by the Commercial Court, Chennai. The petitioner in both these revision petitions is the defendant in a Commercial Suit, initiated by the respondent as plaintiff, for recovery of alleged monies due and payable. The petitioner was set exparte after the Court noticed that the Court summons were returned with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’. The suit came to be decreed thereafter, and after receipt of notice in the Execution Proceedings, the petitioner sought to set aside the exparte decree in the Commercial Suit, albeit with a delay of 402 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. The said Applications have now been disposed of by the Commercial Court, giving an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. However, the Commercial Court has directed the petitioner to deposit the entire suit claim as a condition precedent for such opportunity to be availed of by the petitioner/defendant.

3. Mr.Jeremiah Gregory John, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would state that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this

Court, have repeatedly come down on such onerous condition being passed and such direction to deposit the entire suit claim has to necessarily go. He would further state that the suit summons and plaint documents which are required to be served on the petitioner/defendant, have admittedly not been served and in such circumstances, a fair opportunity should be given by allowing the condone delay application and the setting aside application, without imposing any conditions.

4. Per contra, Mr.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the respondent would state that attempt to serve notice on the opposite party returned with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’, which is now an acceptable deemed service as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also this Court. He would therefore state that when the petitioner was aware of the pendency of the suit, and he took the risk of not filing vakalat and contesting the suit on merits and approached the Court after receipt of the notice in the Execution Proceedings, the attempt of the petitioner is clearly malafide and the Commercial Court, was right in putting the petitioner on terms, in order to secure the interest of the respondent/decree holder. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Admittedly, there has been a delay of 402 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. The only reason given by the petitioner is that he was not served with summons in the suit at the first instance and he came to know about the filing of the suit only on receipt of the notice in the Execution Proceedings. The said contention was opposed by respondent/plaintiff and in fact, found favour with the Trial Court, which also found from the records that the petitioner was attempted to be served at the registered address which is not disputed by the petitioner and the notice was returned with the endorsement unclaimed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, reported in (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 510 case, has held that the return of service with the endorsement 'unclaimed' can be deemed to be a proper service. Therefore, despite having knowledge of the filing of the suit as well as the hearing of the suit before the Commercial Court, the petitioner has invited a huge risk upon himself by not entering appearance and contesting the suit on merits.

7. However, he claims that he received notice in the Execution Petition and only thereafter, he came to know about the exparte decree. The said theory putforth by the petitioner has not been believed by the Commercial Court as well. However, despite the same, the Commercial Court felt that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits, since substantial monies are claimed from the petitioner and it is in this regard, that the

Commercial Court directed the deposit of the entire decree amount together with accrued interest, within a period of one month. Whenever the Courts exercise discretion to afford an opportunity to the aggrieved party to contest the main proceedings on merits, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have very heavily come down on the onerous conditions being passed. This is one such case, where the Commercial Court has called upon the petitioner to deposit the entire decretal amount. It is clearly an onerous condition.

8. Having decided to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits, the Commercial Court ought not to have directed such deposit of the entire decretal amount. At the same time, considering that the petitioner evaded service of notice, which is evident from the fact that the notice/summons sent even pending the suit, returned with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’, which is now acceptable deemed service, the petitioner cannot be allowed to go scot-free.

9. In the light of the above, I am inclined to modify the order of the learned Commercial Court by directing deposit of 50% of the principal amount within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the exparte decree will stand and it shall be open to the respondent/plaintiff to proceed with the Execution Petition already filed.

P.B.BALAJI, J.

10. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.

25.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Principal Commercial Court at Egmore, Chennai. CRP. Nos.4887 & 4889 of 2026 and CMP. No.21361 of 2026