Madras High Court
CRP/4458/2023 of RAMALINGAM Vs RESAVAN on 26 October 2026
CRP.No.4458 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.4458 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA012104952023}
1. Ramalingam
2. Sampath
3. Ravikumar
4. Ramasamy
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Resavan
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and final order dated 10.10.2023 made in
I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.292 of 2011 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai and to allow the CRP.
For Petitioners
: Mr.I.Pragadeesh
for M/s.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For Respondent
: No Appearance
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:52 pm )
CRP.No.4458 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
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai, in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.292 of 2011, dated 10.10.2023 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 1362 days in filing the petition to set aside the order dismissing the suit for default.
2. The petitioners herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent. The suit was dismissed for default on 08.11.2018. The petitioners filed an application to restore the suit along with a petition to condone the delay of 1362 days in filing such application. The condone delay petition was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the date of hearing of the suit was not properly intimated to the petitioners by their Counsel’s Clerk. Therefore, the petitioners could not know about the dismissal of the suit for default. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners acquired knowledge about the dismissal of the suit only after receipt of notice in the application filed by the respondent seeking return of the documents.
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:52 pm )
CRP.No.4458 of 2023
4. It is seen from the typed-set of papers filed in support of the condone delay petition, there are four plaintiffs in the suit. The 1st petitioner/1st Plaintiff- Ramalingam is looking after the case on behalf of the other petitioners. It is also seen that the petitioners visited his Advocate’s Office during the First week of November-2018 and he was told that the Advocate Office would inform the petitioner as and when the matter was posted for trial. Therefore, the according to the 1st petitioner, he has been under the bona fide impression that the hearing date would be informed to them by the Advocate’s Office as and when the matter was posted for trial. However, the petitioners’ received a notice in an application filed by the respondent seeking return of the original documents. Hence, the petitioners approached their Counsel and enquired about the status of the case. Then only they were informed about the dismissal of the suit for default. In order to substantiate the averment made in the affidavit, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1 and he deposed in support of the averments found in his affidavit, there is no contra evidence by the respondent refuting the contention raised by the petitioners.
5. It is seen from the typed-set of papers the main relief sought for in the suit is permanent injunction and the cause of action for permanent injunction is the continuous one. Even if there is a fresh interference by the respondent, the petitioners are entitled to file a fresh suit for permanent injunction on the
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:52 pm )
CRP.No.4458 of 2023
subsequent fresh cause of action. In the light of the assertion made by the 1st petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition and also his evidence before Trial Court, this Court feels an opportunity shall be given to the petitioners to conduct the case on merits.
6. Having regard to the length of delay and other facts and circumstances of the case, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed on condition that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.292 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai District, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand automatically dismissed without further reference to this Court. In case, the petitioners comply with the condition within the time stipulated, the Trial Court is directed to take up the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioners by filing appropriate application before the Trial Court. No costs. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:52 pm )
CRP.No.4458 of 2023
To The Additional District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai.
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:52 pm )
CRP.No.4458 of 2023
S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.4458 of 2023 26-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:52 pm )