Madras High Court
CRP/6754/2026 of Muruganandham Vs Suganthi on 26 October 2026
CRP No. 6754 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6754 of 2026
C.M.P.No.29090 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012454102026}
Muruganandham
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Suganthi
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, pleased to pass an order setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2013 dated 12.08.2026 on the file of the Principal District Judge Court, Tiruvannamalai.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.R.Natarajan
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 trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 2119 days in filing petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking specific performance against the petitioner and others. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 07.01.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree along with petition to condone the delay of 2119 days. The said condone delay petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
CRP No. 6754 of 2026
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner acquired knowledge about the ex-parte decree only during May 2019. He could not file a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree immediately as he suffered injury in his legs. Thereafter, Corona Pandemic intervened. Therefore, the petitioner could not file the application for several months. Since the petitioner is illiterate and out of his native place in connection with his cooly work, the petitioner could not file application in time. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks intervention of this Court and condonation of delay.
4. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner explaining the delay in filing order IX Rule 13 petition would indicate petitioner acquired knowledge about the ex-parte decree as early as May 2019. Inspite of the same, the present application has been filed only during November 2024. Though the petitioner referred about injury in his legs, he has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the said injury and consequential disablement. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Covid Pandemic happened only in March 2020. The petitioner has no explanation for the delay from May, 2019 to March, 2020. However, the Corona Pandemic was over by February 2022, the present application has been filed only in November 2024. The petitioner miserably failed to explain the delay from March 2022 to November 2024. The vague reasons in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition will not explain this much of inordinate delay. The trial Court rightly appreciated these
CRP No. 6754 of 2026
facts and refused to condone the delay of 2119 days. I do not find any serious error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No EP To:- The Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
CRP No. 6754 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J. EP CRP No. 6754 of 2026 C.M.P.No.29090 of 2026 26-10-2026