##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Order reserved on : 27.11.2025 Order pronounced on : 19.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CRP.Nos.5452 & 5453 of 2025

& CMP.Nos.27406 & 27407 of 2025

S.Murugesan (Died)

1.Rajammal

2.S.M.Jayaprakash ... Petitioners in both CRPs

Vs.

1.P.Paramasivam

2.Palaniyammal ... Respondents in both CRPs

Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC,

to set aside the order dated 18.03.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2021 in

O.S.No.160 of 2015 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate

Judge, Salem.

For Petitioners : Mr.L.Ramanathan in both CRPs

For Respondents : Mr.K.Natarajan for R1 in both CRPs

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 08:51:06 pm )

COMMON ORDER

The defendants are the revision petitioners herein. Challenging the

dismissal of I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2021, in and whereby an application to

condone the delay of 255 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte

decree passed in the suit; and to set aside the ex-parte decree passed on

05.10.2018

2.I have heard Mr.L.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Mr.K.Natarajan, learned counsel for the respondents in both the revision

petitions.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit

that the delay was not inordinate or deliberate and even the delay of 255

days was sufficiently explained. However, the trial Court has erroneously

proceeded to dismiss the said application. He would point out that the suit is

for specific performance and the valuable rights of the petitioners in the

immovable property are at stake and therefore, an opportunity should be

give to the petitioners to contest the suit on merits.

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 08:51:06 pm )

st

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1 respondent

would state that the order of the trial Court is well reasoned order and it does

not warrant any interference and he prays for dismissal of the revisions.

5.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel on either side. I have also gone through the affidavit filed by the

petitioners to condone the delay of 255 days.

6.The petitioner has stated that he is aged 80 years old and in view of

his old age, he fell down and sustained injuries and he was not in a position

to move anywhere, including to meet his counsel and only after receipt of

notice in the execution proceedings, the petitioners came to be know about

the decree having been passed.

7.The application, no doubt, was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs,

stating that the delay has not been properly explained and also contending

that even earlier, the petitioners allowed a decree to be passed ex-parte and

therefore, the petitioners are in the habit of dragging the proceedings.

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 08:51:06 pm )

8.The trial Court, finding merit in the objections of the respondents,

has proceeded to dismiss the application.

9.The suit is one for specific performance and admittedly, the plaintiff

has contested the suit by filing written statement and only at the stage of

trial, due to non-appearance of the petitioners/defendants, the suit was

decreed ex-parte. The trial Court has been carried away by the earlier

application filed to set aside the ex-parte decree and therefore held that the

petitioners are not entitled to condone the delay. The trial Court ought not to

have taken note of the earlier proceedings since the Court was considering

only the reasons assigned for non-appearance on a specific date, which

resulted in the ex-parte decree being passed. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in G.P.Srivastava Vs. Shri R.K.Raizada and others, reported in (2000)

AIR (SC) 1221, held that Courts have wide discretion in deciding 'sufficient

cause', keeping in view the peculiar facts of each case and that such

'sufficient cause' for non appearance refers to the date on which the absence

was made a ground for