IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on: 06.11.2025 Pronounced on: 05.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP. Nos.3541 & 3564 of 2025 Ranganathan @ Rangasamy Petitioner in both CRP Vs Mohan Kumar Respondent in both CRP COMMON PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Docket Order dated 09.07.2025 passed in Un-numbered I.A. No... of 2025 in O.S. No. 188 of 2008 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Tiruppur and consequentially direct to number the I.A. filed to condone the delay in filing petition for setting aside the exparte decree and to set aside the exparte decree.

For Petitioner : Ms.BA.Nalini for Mr.K.V.Babu in both CRPs For Respondents : Mr.V.P.Senguttvel, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Satchithanantham in both CRPs

COMMON ORDER

The 3^rd defendant in O.S.No.188 of 2008 is the revision petitioner.

In CRP.No.3541 of 2025, the petitioner challenges the docket order dated 09.07.2025 in unnumbered IA, which was taken out to condone the delay of 316 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.

2.In CRP.No.3564 of 2025, the challenge is to a docket order order dated 09.07.2025 in unnumbered IA taken out to set aside the ex-parte decree.

3.The trial Court has returned the said applications, on the ground that the suit has been decreed on 24-01-2011, after full trial and the decree has also been confirmed by the High Court in A.S.Nos.591 and

592 of 2011 and consequently, the petitions are not maintainable.

4.I have heard Mr.K.V.Babu, assisted by Ms.B.A.Nalini, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revisions and Mr.V.P.Senguttuvel, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Satchitanantham, learned counsel for the respondent.

5.Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit was filed by the respondent, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. The revision petitioner was the third defendant. The petitioner was set ex-parte in the said suit and since other defendants were contesting the suit, trial was proceeded with and the trial Court passed a decree on 24.01.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that there was yet another suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.663 of 2010, in which the revision petitioner was not a party and both the suits were disposed of by a common judgment and even the suit O.S.No.663 of 2010 also came to be decreed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, along with his mother and brothers, namely the defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 filed applications to set aside the ex- parte decree, along with an application to condone delay. The said application was filed on 06-01-2012.

6.It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said petitions were not taken on file and were kept pending. Though it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 13^th defendant in O.S.No.188 of 2008 had preferred appeals in A.S.Nos.591 & 592 of 2011 before this Court, the said appeals were only dismissed for non-prosecution on 22-11-2019. It is also the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the filing of the first appeals before this Court, the entire records were sent to this Court and hence, the petitions filed by the revision petitioner could not be taken up before the trial Court.

7.It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has proceeded to acquire the property from his vendors, to which they were not even entitled to any right. Referring to the relevant documents, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vendors of the petitioner were entitled only to Item 3 and not any other property. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property was purchased only by one Venkatrama Routh, on behalf of the decree holder. There is absolutely nothing to substan