2025:MHC:2868 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No. 3158 of 2024 Jayalakshmi (Dead)

Jayapriya Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.R.Rajeshwari 2.R.Anbumani

3.M.Arularasan Respondent(s)

PRAYER Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to allow the above CRP by setting aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated 31.01.2024 passed in CMA No.12 of 2012 on the file of the Addl. Sub Court, Kanchipuram confirming the fair and decretal order dated 19.11.2010 passed in IA No.827 of 2010 in OS No.830 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Kanchipuram and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Sivakumar Ms.G.Anitha Mr.V.Prabhakaran For R1 & R3 R2- No Such Person

ORDER

Heard Mr.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3. Despite service of notice, the 2^nd respondent has not chosen to enter appearance.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner filed a suit for declaration of his right, title and the interest in the suit schedule property. At the stage of cross-examinitation of PW1, the suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution and within 30 days an application was filed to restore the suit. However, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have proceeded to find that the petitioner has been protracting the proceedings and a second application to restore the suit was filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed in the year 2012 came to be disposed only in the year 2024 and the delay cannot be put against the revision petitioner. He would further submit that substantial reliefs have been sought for in the suit and therefore, the petitioner has not shown indifference or deliberate delay on his part and he should not be non-suited on the ground of non-prosecution on a particular date, especially when restoration of suit was filed within time.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 would submit that the Court below has rightly non-suited the plaintiff on the ground that the suit is pending from 1995 onwards and the respondents have been harassed because of the litigation at the instance of the revision petitioner.

5. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsels on either side and I have also gone through the orders of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, concurrently dismissing the application filed to restore the suit.

6. No doubt, the Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner/plaintiff had left the suit for non-prosecution. The suit then came to be restored in the second application, at the instance of the plaintiff. However, the law is well settled that, whenever an application is filed for setting aside the exparte order or to restore the suit that is dismissed for non-prosecution, the petitioner’s obligation is to show sufficient cause for non-appearance on such date and the earlier order, especially when it has been condoned by the Court, should not prejudice the mind of the Court in deciding the subsequent application filed by the same party.

7. Admittedly, the application has been filed within 30 days that is the period provided for restoration of the suit. On such circumstances, on extraneous situation, the Courts below have proceeded to dismiss the application and therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order of dismissal of the I.A.No.827 of 2010 in O.S.No.830 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Kanchipuram, refusing to restore the suit filed, considering that the respondents have been caused certain prejudice on account of delay specially and I am directing the revision petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.5000/- to the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 on or before 17.12.2025.

8. In result, the Civil Rev