Madras High Court
CRP/1504/2023 of SONIYA MARY Vs R.PARTHASARATHY on 12 August 2026
C.R.P.No.1504 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.08.2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
C.R.P.No.1504 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.9931 of 2023
1. Soniya Mary
2. Gnana Soundari
3. Vimala
... Petitioners
Vs.
1. R.Parthasarathy
2. S.Mary Jacquiline
... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to allow the above Civil Revision Petition thereby set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.316 of 2015 in O.S.No.148
of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvallur.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Gurunathan
For Respondents : No Appearance
C.R.P.No.1504 of 2023
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
I have heard Mr.B.Gurunathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners.
2. The respondents, despite service of notice by way of substituted service, have not come forward to enter an appearance either in person or through counsel.
3. The petitioners, who are defendants in O.S.No.148 of 2010, are siblings and joint owners of the suit property. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into with the petitioners. The 1st respondent alleged that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but the petitioners had failed to execute the sale deed.
4. The petitioners admittedly received summons in the said suit, but were set ex parte. On 08.07.2011, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, E.P.No.15 of 2012 was filed for execution of the sale deed. In the said execution petition, the petitioners admittedly received notice. Thereafter, the petitioners filed E.A.Nos.140 and 141 of 2012. Therefore, even in 2012, the petitioners
C.R.P.No.1504 of 2023 were well aware of the fact that an ex parte decree was passed in a suit for specific performance.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that in July 2012, an application was filed along with a petition to condone a delay of 382 days. However, the said application was not diligently prosecuted by the counsel then engaged by the petitioners. This necessitated the petitioners engaging a new counsel and subsequently filing a fresh application to condone a further delay, resulting in the present Section 5 application seeking the condonation of a delay of 1414 days.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further states that a complaint has also been lodged before the Bar Council against the advocate who was originally engaged by the petitioners, since he had inadvertently appeared for the 1st respondent/plaintiff as well.
7. It is brought to my notice that the proceedings before the Bar Council are pending. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners states that for various other reasons, the petitioners were compelled not to press the complaint before the Bar Council. The Trial Court
C.R.P.No.1504 of 2023 has found that the reasons assigned for the condonation of delay are not sufficient or satisfactory.
8. Though the third petitioner claims that she was suffering from jaundice and hence she could not attend to the matter, there is absolutely no reason as to why the other three petitioners, who are the siblings of the third petitioner, could not take necessary steps to set aside the ex parte decree, especially when they were aware of the ex parte decree even in the year 2012 and they themselves had taken out an application for setting aside the ex parte decree through a different counsel.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brings to my notice that the E.P. for the execution of the sale deed was allowed, and the sale deed was executed in favor of the respondent decree-holder /plaintiff. Thereafter, in a subsequent E.P., possession was also delivered. He would also state that, as against the delivery of possession, C.M.A.No.3 of 2023 is pending before the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur.
10. In the light of the above and also considering the impugned order, I am unable to see any perversity or impropriety in the findings arrived at by
C.R.P.No.1504 of 2023 the Trial Court warranting interference in this revision petition. It is, however, needless to state that the dismissal of this revision petition, confirming the dismissal of the condoned delay application under Section 5, will not come in the way of the petitioners in the event of their succeeding in C.M.A.No.3 of 2023 and establishing their entitlement to restitution.
11. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.08.2026 raja Neutral Citation : Yes / No To The Sub Court, Tiruvallur.
C.R.P.No.1504 of 2023 P.B.BALAJI
, J.
raja C.R.P.No.1504 of 2023 12.08.2026