CRP/4544/2026 of P.V.Nabeesu Vs Wing Commander R.Sivakumaran (Retd.) on 21 August 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Ms. P.Srividhya, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit for recovery of money in O.S.No.2935 of 2023. The said suit was initially dismissed for non-prosecution and the respondent/plaintiff filed an application to restore the suit to file. The trial Court, exercising discretion in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, allowed the said application.

3. The said order was taken up by a way of revision before this Court in CRP.No.6598 of 2025. This Court vide order dated 08.04.2026 had dismissed the revision petition, directing the trial Court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the suit preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of an order.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners states that at the time of handing over the possession, the respondent/plaintiff had given a letter waving the arrears of rent, videi letter dated 25.02.2022. He therefore stated that when the respondent had already waived his right to recover the arrears, the petitioners were under the bonafide impression that the respondents would not pursue the litigation and therefore did not choose to file written statement.

5. He would also invite my attention to the observation made by this Court in CRP.No.6598 of 2025 dated 08.04.2026, where this Court held that the contention raised by the defendant with regard to the alleged settlement and letter dated 02.08.2022 involved disputed questions of facts and can be adjudicated only during the trial.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relying on the said observation of this Court would state that a fair opportunity ought to have been granted by the trial Court to enable the petitioner to exhibit their grievances.

7. Per contra, Ms.P.Srividhya, learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff would firstly deny the genuineness of the alleged letter dated 02.08.2022, as one being a forged document. Secondly, she would state that the reasons assigned for not filing the written statement were only revolving around the said alleged letter dated 02.08.2022. When the petitioners themselves filed

CRP No.6598 of 2025, and were conscious of the fact that this Court had directed the trial Court to expedite disposal of the suit, preferably within a period of four months, there can be no excuse for the petitioners to have not filed their written statements.

8. The learned counsel states that having waited all along and sitting on the fence, at the last moment, after suffering adverse orders, the petitioners have come with frivolous applications. She would also point out that on 02.06.2026, the matter was posted for ex parte evidence and there was no representation, either by the petitioners or their counsels. Ms.P.Srividhya, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintif and she would also state that the trial Court had passed a detailed order considering all the merits and contentions raised by the petitioners as well as objections of the respondent and the said order being a well considered order, does not require any interference.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. counsels. The only issue raised by the respondent/plaintiff is recovery of arrears on rent. The defence taken by the petitioners is that at the time of surrendering possession the respondent/plaintiff had given in writing, agreed to waive the arrears of rent. In fact, this arrears settlement was brought to the notice of this Court in an earlier round of litigation in CRP No.6598 of 2025. However, this Court was of the opinion that the parties should be given an opportunity to test the genuineness of documents at trial. This Court also directed the trial Court to expedite disposal of the suit within four months. Despite being aware of the said order, the petitioners took their own time to file the written statement and to set aside the ex parte order passed against them in the suit, along with the further appliaction seeking to re open and recall the evidence of P.W.1.

10. In the light of the above, and the reasons assigned for not filing the written statement only revolving around the alleged letter settlement. I per sa do not find any perversity in the findings of the trial Court. However, at the same time, the respondent/plaintiff himself had allowed the suit to be dismissed for non-prosecution on one occasion and then the same was challenged before this Court. This Court expressed its view that the alleged settlement is a matter of disputed question of facts. In order to balance equites, I am inclined to afford one final opportunity to the petitioners to contest the suit on merits. However, the prejudice caused to the respondent has to be suitably compensated which can be done in present case in monetary terms.

11. It is also brought to my notice that ex parte decree has been passed on 02.06.2026 and it may give rise to a further appeal at the instance of the petitioner and in order to give a quietus, this revision is disposed of in the following manner:

P.B.BALAJI, J. VCA The ex parte decree dated 02.06.2026 shall be set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the said conditional order is complied with, the ex parte decree dated 02.06.2026 shall stand set aside and the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of the ex parte decree being set aside. With the above directions, Civil Revision Petitions arre disposed of. Connected CMP is closed. 21-08-2026 VCA To,

1. The XXI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai CRP Nos. 4544, 4567 and 4569 of 2026 and CMP No.20119 of 2026