IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on Pronounced on

27.11.2025 11.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR A No. 2295 of 2025 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 307 of 2023 P.K.Ram Mohan Proprietor, Kalpataru Pictures No.24, Flat No.F1, AVM Street Saligramam, Chennai 600 093.

Applicant(s)

Vs

1. M.Gopalakrishnan Proprietor, MVM Traders No.18, 4th Cross Street, Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai

2.Qube Cinema Technologies Private Limited Rep. by its Managing Director No.42, Dr. Ranga Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 3.Sun TV Network Limited Represented by its Managing Director, Murasoli Maran Towers, 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 600 028.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of High Court OS Rules r/w. Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 of CPC, 1908, to set aside the exparte decree dated

29/04/2024 made in the above suit in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.307 of 2023.

For Applicant : Mr.A.Chidambarm For Respondents: Mr.K.Surendar

ORDER

This application has been filed to set aside the exparte decree dated

29.04.2024 passed in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.307 of 2023.

2.The Applicant is the 1^st Defendant in the suit. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Applicant gave an undertaking stating that the Suit film will not be released until further orders. When the above Suit was taken up for hearing on 24.04.2024, the Applicant was set exparte for the reasons that though the Applicant was aware of the pendency of the suit from January 2024, he failed to file the written statement.

3.After the Applicant/1^st defendant was set exparte, the matter was referred to the learned Master for recording of evidence, while recording evidence PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked on the side of the plaintiff and the Suit was decreed as prayed for on 29.04.2024. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the present application has been filed by the Applicant/1^st defendant.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned counsel for the Respondents.

5.Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the exparte judgment was passed when thirty days time was available for the Applicant/1^st defendant to file an application to set aside the exparte order. He further submitted that when the Applicant/1^st defendant was set exparte on 24.04.2024, the Plaintiff was directed to file proof affidavit of all witnesses on or before 25.04.2024, which is the next day of passing of the exparte order and the matter was directed to be listed before the learned Master on 26.04.2024 and after recording of evidence, the matter was listed before this Court and exparte judgment was passed on 29.04.2024, without giving an opportunity to the Applicant to contest the case.

6.The primary contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant is that when thirty days time was available for the Applicant/1^st defendant to file an application to set aside the exparte order passed by this Court as contemplated under the CPC, the matter was listed before this Court after recording of evidence and exparte judgment was passed on 29.04.2024.

7.It is appropriate to look into the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Applicant/1^st defendant that no summon was served on the Applicant/1^st defendant. However, when the Applicant/1^st defendant was appearing through his counsel in the proceedings, the question of service of summons will not arise. The Applicant/1^st defendant has a right to file an application to set aside the exparte order within 30 days, from the date on which the applicant was set exparte i.e., 24.04.2024 which is contemplated under the CPC. However, in the present case the Plaintiff was directed to file a proof affidavit on 25.04.2024 and evidence was recorded on 26.04.2024, thereafter exparte judgmnet was passed on 29.04.2024.

8.The learned counsel for the Applicant is not disputing the fact that the written statement was not filed, however, his main contention is that the judgment was delivered without giving