CRP/6483/2026 of S.Kandasamy(died),1. Balasubramaniyan Vs Supervisor-Post Office on 27 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2026 in O.S.No.6 of 2020 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, wherein the application filed by the first respondent/first defendant under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex parte order dated 11.06.2025, came to be allowed by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.6 of 2020 seeking for the relief of recovery of the compensation amount. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.30 of 2022 in O.S.No.6 of 2020 was filed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagapattinam Division, Nagapattinam, in order to represent the Government, however, this application was dismissed on 10.03.2025. While so, another application came to be filed in I.A.No.4 of 2026 in O.S.No.6 of 2020 to set aside the ex parte order passed on 11.06.2025 against the first defendant, by a person, who claimed to be competent to represent the Government.

4. The petitioners opposed the said application on the ground that the present application is not maintainable since the earlier application filed in I.A.No.30 of 2022 in O.S.No.6 of 2020 was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioners also took a stand that the person, who was representing the first defendant, was not the competent person and therefore, the ground raised is that the defendants are attempting to drag on the proceedings.

5. The Court below dealt with the rival contentions and came to a conclusion that the first defendant has to be given one opportunity to defend the suit and accordingly, the application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

6. In the considered view of this Court, the competency or otherwise of the person representing the first defendant will get exposed at the time of tendering evidence. If, ultimately, the Government is not represented by a competent person that can be taken advantage by the petitioners in the suit. That apart, the dismissal of the earlier application was only on the ground that steps were not taken in the said application and therefore, the same will not be construed as res judicata. The Court below has exercised its discretion and decided to afford an opportunity to the defendants to defend themselves in the suit. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference of this Court.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm

7. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the Court below does not warrant interference of this Court. It is left open to the petitioners to raise the ground of locus of the person representing the Government as not competent to represent the Government and the same will be dealt with by the Court below on its own merits and in accordance with law.

8. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2020, there shall be a direction to the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.6 of 2020 within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This civil revision petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam. Civil Revision Petition No.6483 of 2026