##PAGE1##

CRP. Nos.275, 280, 283 to 285, 290 & 292 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on:27.01.2026 Pronounced on: 30.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

CRP. Nos.275, 280, 283 to 285, 290 & 292 of 2026

and

CMP. Nos. 1376, 1406, 1409, 1412, 1414, 1444 & 1526 of 2026

K.Boopathi

..Petitioner in CRP. No.275 of 2026

V.Purushothaman

..Petitioner in CRP. No.280 of 2026

V.Prabhakaran

..Petitioner in CRP. No.283 of 2026

M.Gopalkumar

..Petitioner in CRP. No.284 of 2026

S.N.Nehru

..Petitioner in CRP. No.285 of 2026

N.Ramesh

..Petitioner in CRP. No.290 of 2026

Ramachandran

..Petitioner in CRP. No.292 of 2026

Vs

Varun Apartment Owners Welfare Association,

Rep. by its President C.T.Ramachandran,

Block No:50, 144, HIG Scheme,

Venugopal Street, Mogappair,

Chennai – 600 037.

Respondent(s)

COMMON PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the fair

and decreetal order passed by the learned District Munsif, Ambattur in

I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.331 of 2018; I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S.

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 04:16:06 pm )

CRP. Nos.275, 280, 283 to 285, 290 & 292 of 2026

No.332 of 2018; I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.334 of 2018; I.A. No.1 of

2023 in O.S. No.272 of 2018; I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.333 of 2018;

I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.266 of 2018 and I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S.

No.336 of 2018 on 06.11.2025.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Selvakumar in all CRPs

For Respondent : Mr.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan

in all CRPs.

**********

COMMON ORDER

The defendants in O.S. No.331 of 2018; O.S. No.332 of 2018;

O.S. No.334 of 2018; O.S. No.272 of 2018; O.S. No.333 of 2018; O.S.

No.266 of 2018 and O.S. No.336 of 2018 on the file of the District

Munsif Court, Ambattur is the revision petitioners.

2. I have heard Mr. K.Selvakumar, learned counsel for the revision

petitioners and Mr. R.Lakshmi Narasimhan, learned counsel for the

respondent / plaintiff.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would state that a delay

of 53 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree has

been dismissed erroneously, without adopting a liberal approach. The

learned counsel would further state that similar suits have been filed by

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 04:16:06 pm )

CRP. Nos.275, 280, 283 to 285, 290 & 292 of 2026

the respondent as against a total number of 12 flat owners and according

to the learned counsel, there is yet another association which is in charge

of the maintenance of the common areas in the apartment complex and

the respondent/plaintiff is an unregistered and non-existent Society. The

learned counsel would also state that a detailed written statement has

been filed along with the application and an opportunity may be given to

the defendants to contest the suit on merits.

4. Per contra, Mr.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, would state that there are as many

as 64 flats in the complex and excepting 12 owners as against whom suits

have been filed, all the remaining flat owners have recognised the

respondent Association and they have been regularly paying maintenance

charges and it is only the respondent who is maintaining the entire

complex and its common areas. He would further state that admittedly,

the revision petitioner was served with summons and did not choose to

file a written statement and contest the suit and consequently, suffered an

ex-parte decree.

5. He would further state that even thereafter, an Application to set

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 04:16:06 pm )

CRP. Nos.275, 280, 283 to 285, 290 & 292 of 2026

aside the ex- parte decree was not filed within the period of 30 days but

with a delay of 53 days. Pointing out to the reasons set out in the affidavit

in support of the condone delay application, Mr.Lakshmi Narasimhan,

learned counsel would contend that the reasons were clearly fallacious

and not only these revision petitioners, b