SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 5149

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top