Madras High Court
CRP/3285/2026 of Kandasamy Vs Prakasam on 24 August 2026
CRP No. 3285 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 3285 of 2026 and CMP No.14256 of 2026
Kandasamy
S/o.Sellamuthu,
Ilupaiyoor Village,
Ariyalur Tk.,
Ariyalur Dist.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Prakasam
S/o.Thangavel,
Ilupaiyoor Village,
Ariyalur Tk.,
Ariyalur Dist.
..Respondent(s)
Revision filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order passed in IA.No.2 of 2025 in OS.No.44 of 2021 on the file of the Additional DistrictMunsif, Ariyalur, dated 05-03-2026.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Kamadevan
For Respondent(s):
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
Heard Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner.
2. Despite notice being served, the Respondent has neither chosen the
( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 05:45:24 pm )
CRP No. 3285 of 2026
appearing in person nor through counsel. I have proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would firstly contend that the suit was filed for recovery of alleged damages for an allegation of trespass committed by the petitioner and his family members. Admittedly the suit was filed alleging trespass during Covid Pandemic period. Subsequently, in the said suit, for non appearance of the petitioner, he was set exparte that too, during the Covid period. However, on 28.04.2022, the suit was decreed set exparte, admittedly after the midst of the Covid pandemic. Thereafter on receipt of the notice in the Execution Petition, the petitioner has entered appearance in the execution petition on 10.03.2023 and immediately, within a span of two days on 12.03.2025, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been file together with an application for setting aside the exparte decree. Though the petitioner calculated the delay as 850 days, the court found that the delay was 1027 days and proceeded to find that the petitioner has not made out any sufficient cause, explaining the said delay and thereby dismissed the condone delay application.
4. Mr.S.Kamadevan. learned counsel for the petitioner states that the suit being one for damages, atleast a fair opportunity should be given to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits. He would therefore pray for the revision
( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 05:45:24 pm )
CRP No. 3285 of 2026
being allowed , especially since the respondent had not been interested to even come and defend the order passed by the trial court, before this court.
5. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.I have also gone through the impugned order passed by the Additional Principal District Munsif, Ariyalur dismissing the Section 5 application.
6. The Petitioner has filed the application to set aside the exparte decree only after an order of arrest came to his notice in 2025. In fact, according to Mr.S.Kamadevan, on coming to know of the arrest proceedings on 12.03.2025, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. The trial court, finding that even in 2023, after the suit was decreed and after the Covid period exemption granted by the Honourable Supreme court also expired, the petitioner entered appearance through counsel in the execution proceedings and did not file any counter, which resulted in the order of arrest being passed that too, after lapse of two years alone. There is absolutely no explanation for not approaching the trial court to set aside the exparte decree atleast after the receipt of the notice in the executing proceeding in March 2023. The delay of two years stands totally unexplained. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the Covid Pandemic period, since the decree itself was passed long after the
( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 05:45:24 pm )
CRP No. 3285 of 2026
exemption period granted by the Honourable Supreme Court, which expired in February 2023.
7. In the light of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, dismissing the application. However, it is brought to my notice that in the Execution Petition, a sum of Rs.10,000 was paid pursuant to the first defendant being arrested and on payment of Rs.10,000, he was released. However the execution petition is pending for recovery of the balance amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand Only) together with 6% interest.
8. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances and considering that it is only a suit for recovery of damages, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner to pay the balance decree amount, after adjusting Rs.10,000/-, in five equal monthly installments from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. If such amounts are paid in the aforesaid manner, then the respondent shall receive the same in full satisfaction and the execution petition shall be terminated.
9. In the result, subject to the concession shown herein above, civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.08.2026 sr/rsm Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 05:45:24 pm )
CRP No. 3285 of 2026
To The Additional District Munsif Court, Ariyalur
( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 05:45:24 pm )
CRP No. 3285 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI.,J sr CRP No. 3285 of 2026 24.08.2026
( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 05:45:24 pm )