2025:MHC:3002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :17/12/2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

C.R.P. NO.4077 OF 2022

AND

C.M.P.NO.21168 OF 2022

1.Mr.Periyasamy

2.Mr.Venkatesan ...

Petitioners/Petitioners/

Defendants

Vs.

Mr.Nehru ...

Respondent/Respondent/

Plaintiff

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated August 18, 2022 made in I.A.No.256 of 2020 in O.S.No.4 of 2017 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpettai,

Kallakurichi.

For Petitioners : Ms.K.Varsha

For Respondent : Ms.R.Poornima

O R D E R

Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order dated August 18, 2022 passed in I.A.No.256 of 2020 in O.S.No.4 of 2017 on the file of 'the Additional District Munsif Court, Ulundurpettai, Kallakurichi District' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'), the Petitioners/Defendants therein have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2.The Revision Petitioners herein are the Defendants and the Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in the Original Suit in O.S.No.4 of 2017. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. The Plaintiff filed the aforesaid Suit for specific performance of Sale Agreement dated February 22, 2011. The sale price agreed therein was Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only). According to the Plaintiff, Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) was paid as an advance on the date of Sale Agreement and the balance sale price of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) was to be paid within 24 months. According to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated period but the Defendants refused to come forward and execute the Sale Deed as per the Sale Agreement. Hence, he filed the Suit for specific performance and other relief.

4.It is apposite to mention here that though the plaint was verified on December 21, 2015 and presented on the same date, the plaint was returned due to some defects. Thereafter, the plaint was re-presented along with I.A.No.811 of 2016 praying to condone the delay of 227 days in re- presenting the plaint. In the said petition, notice was ordered to the Respondents therein / Defendants and they entered appearance through an Advocate. The said petition was allowed on payment of cost. Thereafter, the Original Suit was taken on file on January 05, 2017 as O.S.No.4 of 2017 and posted on February 09, 2017 for the first hearing. On that date, Mr.A.Rajagopal, Advocate filed a memo stating that he was already on record for the Defendants. Hence, the Trial Court granted time till June 09, 2016 for the defendants to file written statement. Since the Defendants did not file written statement on that date, they were called absent and set ex- parte and then an ex-parte decree was passed on September 17, 2019 against the Defendants.

5.The Defendants filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against them with a delay of 244 days. The Defendants filed an affidavit wherein they have stated that the Defendants were working at Kamala Nagar, Bangalore and the summons were not served on them. The Defendants were unaware of the aforesaid Suit proceedings. Only upon receiving notice in the Execution Petition filed pursuant to the ex-parte decree, the Defendants came to know about the ex-parte decree passed against them. Accordingly, the Defendants prayed to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.

6.The Plaintiff filed counter denying the averments made in the affidavit and stating that the Defendants continuously reside in their native village.

nd

7.In the application filed to set aside the ex-parte decree, the 2 nd Petitioner / 2 Defendant was examined as P.W.-1 and one Veeran was examined as P.W.-2 to substantiate the defendants' case and the Respondent/Plaintiff did not adduce any evidence.

8.The Trial Court after