2026:MHC:71

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

ORDER RESERVED ON : 09 / 12 / 2025

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 06 / 01 / 2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

C.R.P.NO.603 OF 2023

Mr. Rajarajan ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Mr. K.P. Selvam

2.Mr. Chandra

3.The Branch Manager,

Salem Central Co-operative Bank Limited,

Thammampatti Post,

Gengavalli Taluk,

Salem District.

4.Mr. Subbarayan 5.Mr. Arumugam

6.Mr. Perumal

7. Mr. K.A.Kaliyan

8. Mr. Selvarasu …Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated November 30, 2022 passed in I.A.No.216 of 2016 in O.S.No.91 of 2011

on the file of the Subordinate Court, Attur.

For Petitioners : Ms. Anvitha.R

for Ms.V.Srimathi

For Respondents : Mr.K.Arunbabu for Respondent No.4 Mr.A.Sriram for Respondent No.7 Not ready in notice for Respondent No.2 Respondent Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 served -

No appearance

O R D E R

Feeling aggrieved by the Fair and Decreetal Order dated November

30, 2022 passed in I.A.No.216 of 2016 in O.S.No.91 of 2011 on the file of the ‘Subordinate Court, Attur,’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), the Petitioner therein has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2.For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3.The Plaintiff filed the Original Suit against the Defendants seeking the relief of declaration of certain documents as null and void, permanent injunction and also seeking an alternative relief of Partition and separate possession.

4.The Suit was filed in the year 2011. When the Suit was posted on July 27, 2016 for the appearance of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff failed to appear before the Trial Court and conduct the case and hence, the suit was dismissed for default on July 27, 2016. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a petition under Order IX Rule 9 of the ‘Code of Civil Procedure, 1908’ (‘CPC’ for short) to set aside the dismissal order and to restore the Suit on file, in I.A.No.216 of 2016. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court passed a conditional order dated November 30, 2022 stating that the Interlocutory Application is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- payable by the Plaintiff to the 6^th Defendant before December 9, 2022, failing which, the petition shall be dismissed. The Plaintiff did not comply with the conditional order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the said Interlocutory Application stood dismissed.

5.Feeling aggrieved by the Fair and Decreetal Order dated November 30, 2022, the Plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

6.Ms.R.Anvitha, representing Ms.V.Srimathi, learned counsel on record for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Advocate of the Petitioner / Plaintiff before the Trial Court failed to take note of the Order passed by the Trial Court and convey the same to the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff could not comply with the conditional order. The Plaintiff has no deliberate or willful intention to cause any delay in the proceedings or disobey the order of the Court. The Plaintiff is ready to deposit the said amount as may be directed by this Court. Accordingly, she prayed to set aside the order of the Trial Court.

7.Per contra, Mr.K.Arunbabu, learned counsel appearing for the 4^th Respondent and Mr.A.Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the 7^th Respondent submit that the order under challenge is an appealable Order under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) of CPC. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable. They submit that the suit was filed in the year 2011 and that, with a view to harass the Defendants 3 to 8, the Plaintiff wantonly allowed the suit to be dismissed for default and thereafter filed a petition for restoration, only with an intention to delay the proceedings and to secure unlawful enrichment. The learned Counsels further submit that the Trial Court dismi