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. No.27116 of 2025 Jaya @ Jayalakshmi Petitioner in all CRPs Vs Rasamani @ Mani Respondent in all CRPs COMMON PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 14.07.2025 made in E.A. No.1 of 2023 in E.P. No.183 of 2022 in O.S. No.32 of 2016; to set aside the order dated 05.08.2025 made in I.A No.03 of 2024 in O.S. No.32 of 2016; to set aside the order dated 05.08.2025 made in I.A. No.02 of 2024 in O.S. No.32 of 2016; and to set aside the order dated 14.07.2025 made in E.A. No.2 of 2023 in E.P. No.183 of 2022 in O.S. No.32 of 2016, all are on the file of the III Additional District/Sessions Court, Salem by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad for Mr.D.Lakshmipathy in all CRPs For Respondent : Mr.L.Mouli in all CRPs **********

COMMON ORDER

All these revision petitions are at the instance of the defendant in O.S. No.32 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Guruprasad, for Mr.N.Lakshmipathi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in all these revisions and Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the respondents in all these revisions.

3. Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent and pending trial of the suit, the defendant sought to file an additional written statement which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. The said order was challenged before this Court in CRP. No.962 of 2017. Pending the CRP, the petitioner had the benefit of an interim stay as well. However, Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said revision ultimately came to be dismissed on 18.03.2017 and thereafter, the petitioner had filed I.A. No.1 of 2021 for amendment of the written statement which also came to be dismissed on 10.11.2021. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CRP. No.474 of 2022. Inviting my attention to the order passed by this Court on 11.01.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking note of the fact that the suit has been decreed exparte on 09.12.2021 and the revision has become infructuous, giving liberty to restore the revision in the event of the exparte decree being set aside, the said CRP. No.474 of 2022, came to be disposed.

4. Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though a memo was filed by the petitioner on 09.12.2021, before the Trial Court seeking time on the ground that the petitioner intended to challenge the order in I.A. No.1 of 2021 declining to permit the amendment of the written statement, the Trial Court refused to adjourn the matter and proceeded to decree the suit on 09.12.2021. The learned counsel would therefore state that it is not the case where the petitioner has been indifferent or careless and he has been diligently defending the suit and therefore, an opportunity ought to have been given by the Trial Court to permit the petitioner to contest the suit for specific performance on merits and especially considering that the valuable immovable property of the petitioner is being taken away under the guise of an exparte decree for specific performance. He would further submit that the other revision petitions CRP. Nos.5387, 5388 and 5389 of 2025 are only consequential petitions arising out of orders passed in E.A. Nos.1 & 2 of 2023 in EP. No.183 of 2022 and I.A. No.03 of 2024 in O.S. No.32 of 2016. The learned counsel would therefore state that the order being passed in the revisions in CRP. No.5382 and 5387 of 2025, would have a bearing on the decisions in the other two revisions.

5. Per contra, Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the respondent submit that it is not as if the petitioner was diligently pro