IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on:25.09.2025 Pronounced on:10.10.2025 CORAM THE Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP. No.2086 of 2023 Commissioner, Udumalpet Municipality, Udumalpet.

Petitioner Vs Udumalpet Recreation Club, by its Secretary, Mr.C.Chidambarasamy.

Respondent PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.10.2022 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet passed in I.A.

No.457 of 2017 in O.S. No.111 of 2013.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Thambuswamy Mr.B.Anand For Respondent : Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Palanimuthu ********* O R D E R The third defendant, challenging the order of dismissal of the Section 5 Application, which was filed for condonation of delay of 1030 days in taking out the Application for setting aside the exparte decree, is the revision petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Thambuswamy and Mr.B.Anand, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Palanimuthu, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Thambuswamy, would state that the plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.111 of 2013 to declare his title by way of adverse possession and for mandatory injunction regarding approval of his building plan. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon receiving summons in the said suit, the Commissioner, Udumalpet Municipality, the third defendant had entrusted the matter to the Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality and even a vakalatnama had been given. However, the Standing Counsel went abroad and did not care to represent the matter, which resulted in an exparte decree being passed. He would therefore state that the petitioner was in dark about the proceedings and was under the impression that the Standing Counsel was taking care of the matter. However, only when the issue regarding approval of the building plan in pursuance of decree was brought to the notice of the petitioner, the petitioner came to know about the exparte decree and immediately, they have taken out an Application to set aside the exparte decree, along with an Application seeking condonation of delay of 1030 days.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Thambuswamy, would further state that the Standing Counsel who was entrusted with the matter was even examined as R.W.2 and referring to his evidence, he would contend that the evidence of the said Advocate is wholly untrustworthy and cannot be relied on. He would therefore state that the valuable property of the municipality being at stake, a fair opportunity may be given to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits. He would also state that the third defendant would co-operate for expeditious disposal of the suit on merits.

5. Per contra, Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would submit that the only case on which the petitioner sought to condone the huge delay of 1030 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree was that the summons had been entrusted along with vakalatnama to the Standing Counsel, who subsequently, went abroad and did not defend the petitioner before the Trial Court.

6. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that it was the respondent who took efforts to examine the said Standing Counsel and referring to the evidence of the Standing Counsel, Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel would state that the Standing Counsel has clearly stated that he never went abroad and that he was never entrusted with the vakalatnama for the matter and only when the third defendant approached him to set aside the exparte decree, he required a parawise remarks, so that the writ