IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

CRP No. 6324 of 2025 and

CMP.No.31371 of 2025

1. Tharun Abhiraaj Petitioner

Vs

1. Uma Parameshwaran

2.U.Archana Devi

3.Dr.Rajasekaran

4.Anuradha Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgement and decretal order dated 06-10-2025 passed in IA.No.3 of 2023 in OS.No.1174 of 2018,on the file of the

Prl.Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore. For Petitioner(s): M/S.R.Harinath

For Respondent(s): M/S.P.Saravana Sowmiyan for

R1

ORDER

The Civil Revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule

7 of CPC.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit seeking declaration that the 1^st respondent/1st Plaintiff was the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property and also for permanent injunction. They also sought for a declaration that sale deed dated 22-02-2006 and power of attorney deed dated 19-01-2006 were null and void and not binding on the 1^st plaintiff.

3. The petitioner herein, who was arrayed as 2^nd defendant in the suit, was set ex-parte on 04-07-2019. The suit proceeded ex-parte as other defendants were also set ex-parte. The arguments were heard on 20-07-2023 and the matter was adjourned to 10-08-2023 for pronouncement of the judgment. On that day, written arguments was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter, again the matter was adjourned to 23.08.2023 for pronouncement of the judgment. At that stage, application has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the ex- parte order passed against him. The said application was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that petitioner failed to file application within three years from the date on which he was set ex-parte and therefore, the application was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

4. As far as the question of limitation, the conclusion by trial court is not sustainable in view of the decision in Pilla Reddy and Others Vs Thimmaraya Reddy and Others reported in (1997)1 MLJ 37. The relevant portion reads as follows:-

“7. One of the main reasons assigned by the court for dismissing the application is that the application should have been filed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, i.e., within three years from the date of the Order when they were declared ex parte. Since no application was filed within that time, the court below was of the view that the same is barred.

8. The said finding cannot be correct. It is a pending proceeding, and it is well-settled law that once a suit has been instituted, limitation will not run. In Delhi Development Authority v. Shanti Devi and Another, AIR 1982 Delhi 159, a learned Judge of that High Court said that 'under the Limitation Act no period is prescribed for filing an application for setting aside order proceeding ex parte. Under Rule 7 of Order 9 of the Code the defendant is allowed to file an application at or before the next date of hearing and if he assigns good cause for his non- appearance on the previous date of hearing the court may set aside the order proceeding ex parte. The application by the petitioner-defendant under Order 9, Rule 7 was made on the next date of hearing i.e.., 16th August, 1979. Thus it is clear that the defendant-petitioner filed the application in accordance with Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code. It must therefore be held that the application was filed in accordance with law. There is no rule that an application under Order 9, Rule 7, is to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order proceeding ex parte. The said decision was followed by our High Court in the decision reported in Palani Nathan v. Devanai Ammal, (1989)2 MLJ 259, While considering a similar question, this Court held thus:

“...For filing an application under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C., no limitation is prescribed and that i