Madras High Court
CRP/6922/2026 of A. Bhaskar Vs Wilson on 3 November 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6922 of 2026
& CMP.No.29767 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012283502026}
A.Bhaskar,
S/O M.K.Arokkiyasamy
1/37, Foxan Street,
Perambur, Chennai,
600 011.
...Petitioner
Vs
Irudayasamy (died)
1. Wilson, S/O Peter
1/37, Foxan Street,
Perambur, Chennai,
600 011.
2. Epse Laxmi, D/O Peter
1/37, Foxan Street,
Perambur, Chennai,
600 011.
...Respondents
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:29 pm )
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the docket order dated 11.9.2026 passed in I.A.SR.No.
68462 of 2024 in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.3545 of 2016 on the file of the 18th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner:
Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef
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
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 11.9.2026 passed in I.A.SR.No.68462 of 2024 in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.3545 of 2016 on the file of the 18th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (for short, the Court below) refusing to entertain the said application seeking for extension of time to pay the costs of Rs.3,000/- imposed while disposing of I.A.No.5 of 2024 on 03.7.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:29 pm )
available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed the said suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, recovery of possession and declaration. The said suit reached the stage of trial. But, PW1 failed to appear before the Court below nor subjected himself to cross examination. Hence, the evidence on the side of PW1 was closed on 22.6.2023.
5. Pursuant to that, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 seeking to reopen the evidence of PW1 and it was dismissed for default on 23.8.2023. In view of the same, I.A.No.4 of 2023 was filed seeking to restore I.A.No.3 of 2023. I.A.No.4 of 2023 was allowed on 14.12.2023 by directing the petitioner/plaintiff to pay costs of Rs.300/- to the respondents/defendants on or before 04.1.2024. Since the said conditional was not complied with on time, I.A.No.5 of 2024 came to be filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to extend the time to comply with the conditional order dated 14.12.2023. Further, I.A.No.5 of 2024 was allowed on 03.7.2024 by directing the petitioner/plaintiff to pay a sum of
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:29 pm )
Rs.3,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority on or before 09.7.2024. This condition was also not complied with on time and hence, the present application was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking for extension of time to pay the costs of Rs.3,000/-. However, the Court below refused to entertain the present application and rejected the same. Aggrieved by that, the above revision has been filed before this Court.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner/plaintiff, right through, was slack in prosecuting the case. There was absolutely no progress in the said suit from 2023 onwards due to the attitude of the petitioner/plaintiff. Even when the Court below wanted to give an opportunity to reopen the case by allowing I.A.No.5 of 2024, the petitioner/plaintiff, for some strange reasons, did not comply with the conditional order dated 03.7.2024 by paying the costs of Rs.3,000/- imposed by the Court below.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that there was a change of counsel and that only after the new counsel had taken guard, the case was prosecuted before the
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:29 pm )
Court below.
8. Even though this Court is not inclined to entertain this revision, considering the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff and taking note of the fact that the earlier counsel had not properly followed up the matter, as a last chance, there shall be a direction to the petitioner/plaintiff to deposit of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only) to the credit of O.S.No.3545 of 2016 before the Court below within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the cost is paid within time, the Court below shall permit the petitioner/plaintiff to reopen the evidence of PW1 and proceed further in accordance with law. If the condition imposed by this Court is not complied with, the order passed by the Court below dated 03.7.2024 dismissing I.A.No.5 of 2024 will stand confirmed.
9. The civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. 03-11-2026
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:29 pm )
To The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai RS
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:29 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6922 of 2026& CMP.No.29767 of 2026 03-11-2026
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:29 pm )