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 and CMP. Nos.19804, 19810, 22843 & 22848 of 2025 George Foundation, Rep. by its Authorized Trustees, Dr.Lekha Keister, No.401, 4E, Cross, 2^nd Block, HRBR Layout, Kalayana Nagar, Bangalore 560 043.

Petitioner in all CRPs Vs

1.K.Sakthivel Jude Devadas (died)

2.K.S.Venkatesh

3.K.Govindasamy

4.The Sub Registrar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

Respondents in all CRPs COMMON PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair order passed in I.A. Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 in O.S. No.4 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hosur and to set aside the consequential decreetal order dated 25.07.2025 passed in I.A. Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 in O.S. No.4 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hosur.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan in all CRPs For Respondents : Mr.S.Vasudevan for R1 in all CRPs Mr.N.Muthuvel, Government Advocate for R4 in all CRPs **********

COMMON ORDER

These revision petitions have been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.

4 of 2012, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Trial Court condoning delay of 3378 days in filing the petition to set aside exparte decree and also consequently, proceeding to set aside the exparte decree against the third defendant.

2. I have heard Mr.R.Ezhilarasan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in all the revisions and Mr.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.N.Muthuvel, learned Government Advocate for fourth respondent in all the revisions.

3. Mr.R.Ezhilarasan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the Trial Court has erroneously exercised discretion in favour of the third defendant by condoning an inordinate delay of 3378 days and consequently, setting aside the exparte decree as well. The learned counsel would submit that the suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction by the revision petitioner as plaintiff in O.S. No.4 of 2012. The third defendant entered appearance and also filed his written statement, but however, subsequently, did not defend the suit and the same resulted in an exparte decree being passed on 14.08.2014. The first respondent filed an application to set aside the exparte decree dated 14.08.2014, along with an application to condone delay of 338 days in I.A. No.167 of 2015. The said I.A. came to be dismissed for default on 20.04.2016 and the first respondent filed I.A. No.80 of 2016 to set aside the said order dated 20.04.2016, the said I.A. came to be allowed on

14.06.2018 and consequently, I.A. No.167 of 2015 was restored.

4.Pending enquiry in I.A. No.167 of 2015, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and the first respondent entered into a compromise. The matter was settled out of Court and the application filed by the first respondent in I.A. No.167 of 2015 was withdrawn by order dated 13.08.2019 with the withdrawal of the said application, the decree passed on 14.08.2014, become final. In this backdrop, according to Mr.Ezhilarasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, suppressing the filing of the earlier I.A. No.167 of 2015 and subsequent events, leading to the withdrawal of I.A. No.167 of 2015 on 13.08.2019, the first respondent has filed an application seeking to condone delay of

3378 days in seeking to set aside the exparte decree in I.A. No.1 of 2024 and to set aside the exparte decree in I.A. No.2 of 2024. The learned counsel would further state that despite having filed a detailed counter and also marked all relevant documents as Ex.R1 to R6, the Trial Court, without considering any of the contentions of the revision petitioners, has proceeded allow the applications on payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-.

5. The learned counsel inviting my attention to the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay would submit that the first respondent has alrea