IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI and CMP No.1890 of 2024

1. Dhanabakkiyammal @ Dhanabakkiyam W/o Late Munusamy Reddiar, Reddy St, Panapakkam Village, Palavakkam Post, Petitioner(s)

Uthukottai (Via). Uthukottai Tk, Tiruvallur Dt Vs

1. C.Kotteaswara Reddy S/o Late Duraisamy Reddy, Seenikuppam Village, Palavakkam Post, Uthukottai Tk, Respondent(s)

Tiruvallur Dt For Petitioner(s): Mr. G.Jermiah For Respondent(s): Mr. S.Sathish

ORDER

Heard Mr.G.Jermiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Sathish, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.111 of 2021 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the trial Court allowing the application to condone the delay of 94 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the respondent had come to Court with a false affidavit and the Court having given a finding that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause, ought not to have condoned the delay. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the respondent has already complied with the conditional order by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and would further contend that even in the written statement, it is the case of the respondent/defendant that a sum of Rs.95,000/- was due and payable to the plaintiff and the said amount is also now secured by depositing of the same in compliance of the order of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur and therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the revision.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by either side.

6. The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,59,000/- as on the date of filing of the suit. The respondent was set exparte and he has filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the exparte order along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 94 days. The trial Court, having found that the respondent has admitted the liability to the tune of Rs.95,000/- has proceeded to allow he application and imposed a condition to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) to the credit of O.S.No.111 of 2021. The said condition has also been complied with admittedly and now the application to set aside the exparte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code is pending. As this Court has granted stay in the above revision at the request of the plaintiff, the setting aside application has not been taken up ever since. However, on the contrary, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the execution petition has been proceeded with and it is at the stage of sale papers. Learned counsel would state that the respondent is willing to comply with any further reasonable condition that may be imposed and would co-operate for day-today trial and expeditious disposal of the suit as the respondent has made out sufficient defence, 7. The trial court has thought it fit to exercise discretion to condone the delay of 94 days and at the same time, in order to protect the interest of the petitioner/plaintiff and also to compensate the prejudice that is caused had directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) which was the amount admitted to be due by the respondent/defendant himself. Therefore, the trial court has exercised discretion. I do not see any reasons whatsoever to interfere that too under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In fact, I find from the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application that the petitioner was suffering from jaundice and he was not aware of the exparte decree and that he came to know about the exparte