Ex parte judgments must adhere to procedural requirements of the CPC; otherwise, such judgments can be ruled illegal and set aside, especially when they affect public rights.

ORDER :

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai in I.A.No.02 of 2025 in O.S.No.190 of 2010, dated 23.10.2025.

2.Heard Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate for the petitioners and Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman, learned Counsel for the respondent.

3.The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.190 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The suit in O.S.No.190 of 2010 has been filed seeking a relief of declaration of the order passed by the second petitioner, dated20.11.2009 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit property. The said suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment, dated 24.02.2011. The said judgment is extracted hereunder:

“This Suit is filed to declare that the order passed by the 2^nd defendant with regard to the suit property on 20.11.2009 without proper enquiry is null and void and to grant permanent injunction from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property till the order to be passed with costs of this Suit.

2.Plaintiff present and examined in PW.1 in chief through proof affidavit. Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 marked. Suit claim proved. Suit is decreed as prayed for with costs.”

4.Thereafter, the petitioners herein have filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 151 of CPC to condone the delay of 5138 days to file a petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed by the Court below. The learned District Munsif, Sivagangai, vide impugned order, dated 23.10.2025, had dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioners have not given any satisfactory reasons with sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 5138 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

5.Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court has examined PW-1 in chief and marked Ex-A1 to Ex-A7, however, the ex parte judgment do not reflect the contents of the plaint and the relevance of the documents, which were marked as Ex-A1 to Ex-A7 and without any discussion with regard to the above, the ex parte judgment has been passed. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that at the time of institution of the Original Suit, Kalaiyarkovil Taluk was not separated from Sivagangai Taluk and due to excessive workload in Sivagangai Taluk and the result of the transfer of the staff engaged in managing the judicial work, the petitioners could not file the written statement and only after the bifurcation of Sivagangai Taluk, the petitioners came to know about the passing of the impugned ex parte judgment. Hence, there is an inordinate delay in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte judgment. He further submitted that the Court below has failed to consider that the ex parte decree was void in form and defective in substance, warranting setting aside even after delay and that the administrative delay cannot be mechanically applied to a case involving government land cancellation proceedings, where public rights are affected.

6.The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that a cryptic judgment cannot be passed, even if it is going to be an ex parte judgment, without any reference to the claim made in the plaint and the relevance to the documen