Madras High Court
CRP/5902/2025 of M.MAYILSAMY Vs D.DHAMODHRAN on 14 August 2026
CRP No. 5902 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 5902 of 2025
M.Mayilsamy
S/o.P.Muthusamy, Res at Door No.12/145,
Subramani Siva Street, Veerappanchatram, Erode-4, Erode Taluk, Erode District
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
D.Dhamodhran
S/o.Duraisamy Gounder, No.65, Kommakoil, Vadamugam Vellode Village, Perundurai R.S.Post, Erode Taluk, Erode District
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order of the Learned Principal District Munsif, Erode dated 13.06.2013 in I.A.No.869 of 2012 in O.S.No.355 of 2009 and to order the said
I.A. as prayed for and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. T.M. Hariharan
For Respondent:
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.T.M.Hariharan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.355 of 2009. The petitioner
CRP No. 5902 of 2025
was set ex-parte on 26.02.2010 and an ex-parte decree came to be passed. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was set ex-parte for not coming forward to cross examine PW1, which is the reason set out in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay of 456 days. Additionally, the petitioner has also stated that because of his ill health he could not appear and conduct the proceedings. The Section 5 Application was contested by the respondent/plaintiff by stating that the petitioner has not even filed his written statement and a false affidavit has been sworn. The trial Court taking note of the same and finding from the records that written statement had been returned and was represented along with a delay of 272 days and was not even been taken on file and only for this reason the petitioner was set ex-parte and thereafter the ex-parte evidence was recorded and the suit was disposed of by way of ex-parte decree on 26.06.2010, found that the petitioner had sworn to a false affidavit that he was set ex-parte for not cross examining PW1 held that no sufficient cause has been made out by the petitioner.
3. The trial Court has also rightly found that even from the reading of the affidavit, the petitioner admits to the fact that he was aware of the decree passed on 26.02.2010 itself.
4. In such circumstances the trial Court, in my considered opinion rightly found that the delay of 456 days has not been explained and therefore the
CRP No. 5902 of 2025
petitioner not being diligent is not entitled to discretion to be exercised in his favour. I do not find any infirmity warranting interference in the order passed by the trial Court.
5. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed if any.
14-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DPQ To
1. The learned Principal District Munsif, Erode
CRP No. 5902 of 2025
P.B.BALAJI, J. DPQ CRP No. 5902 of 2025 14-08-2026