IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice S. SOUNTHAR
E.RAVI – Appellant
Versus
SUKHIL RAJA – Respondent
##PAGE1##
C.R.P.No.73 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.No.73 of 2026
and
C.M.P.No.222 of 2026
E.Ravi ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Sukhil Raja
2.Akhil Joyel Raja ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to allow this civil revision petition and set aside the
order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.176 of 2024
dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Alandur.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Karuppaiyamooppanar
For Respondents : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 03:21:41 pm )
##PAGE2##C.R.P.No.73 of 2026
O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the condition imposed
by the Subordinate Judge, Alandur in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.176 of
2024, dated 11.11.2025 while allowing the application filed by the petitioner
seeking to set aside the exparte order passed against him on 21.11.2024.
2. The respondents herein filed a suit against the petitioner seeking
recovery of possession. The respondents also sought for a decree directing
the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,000/- towards arrears of rent from
April-2020 to June-2024. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner
was inducted as a tenant in the suit property and he committed default in
payment of the rent.
3. Owing to non-appearance of the petitioner, he was set exparte on
21.11.2024 and the suit was proceeded. In these circumstances, the instant
application in I.A.No.1 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner seeking to
set aside the exparte order. It was the specific case of the petitioner that the
suit summon was not served on him and the observation made by the Trial
Court that he refused to receive summon was not correct.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 03:21:41 pm )
##PAGE3##C.R.P.No.73 of 2026
4. In the impugned order, the Trial Court recorded that when Process
Server attempted to serve suit summons, the petitioner refused to receive it
after acquiring knowledge about the contents of the same. Therefore, this
Court called for original returned summons from the Trial Court.
5. A perusal of the returned summons would indicate that Process
Server in his endorsement dated 09.10.2024 had stated that when he
attempted to serve the suit summons on the petitioner, he refused to receive
the same, after seeing the contents. It is further stated that the petitioner also
did not permit the Process Server to affix the court summons.
6. Based on the endorsement of the Process Server, the Trial Court in
the impugned order observed that the suit summons were refused by the
petitioner. The endorsement of the Process Server dated 09.10.2024 in the
returned summons do not indicate the names of the persons, who identified
the defendant. The return endorsement of the Process Server has not been
counter signed by any of the witnesses. It is also further seen that the Trial
Court has not examined the Process Server on oath as required under Rule
19 of Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 03:21:41 pm )
##PAGE4##C.R.P.No.73 of 2026
7. Since the procedure contemplated under Order V Rules 17 and 19
of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been properly followed, this Court
feels there is some irregularity in serving the suit summons. In such
circumstances, an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to conduct the
suit on merits. Therefore, I agree with the conclusion reached by the Trial
Court in allowing the application filed by the petitioner. However, the
condition imposed by the Trial Court is onerous one. By impugned order,
the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,27,000/-, which
was claimed by the respondents as arrears of rent.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as on
today there is an arrears of only Rs.30,000/-. Since there is a controversy
with regard to the quantum
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.