THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Judgment reserved on : 12.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on : 20.02.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP.No.377 of 2026 & CMP.No.2150 of 2026

1.D.Kalpana

2.Sandhya .. Petitioners Vs.

R.M.Hemalatha .. Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.7497 of 2022 dated 08.12.2025 on the file of the XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan for M/s.Karan & Uday For Respondent : Mr.A.Umashankar

ORDER

The revision petition has been filed by the defendants to set aside the docket order dated 03.12.2025 in IA.No.2 of 2025 in OS.No. 7497 of 2022.

2.At the time of moving the revision petition for admission, it was the case of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan, that the fair order has not even been uploaded and only in view of the urgency, the counsel was permitted to move the revision, based on the docket order passed in IA.No.2 of 2025. However, it is now fairly admitted by both the counsel that the detailed order has been uploaded and the same is available. Hence, I have proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the revision petition.

3.Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan, learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the suit has been filed by the respondent for recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation. An ex-parte decree was passed in the suit and in order to set aside the ex-parte decree, an application has been filed along with an application to condone the delay of 305 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The said application in IA.No.2 of 2025 has now been dismissed by the trial Court and it is challenging the said order dated

08.12.2025 that the present revision petition has been filed.

4.Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would state that though pursuant to the decree, the Court Bailiff has also recorded delivery having been taken and handed over to the plaintiff, according to the learned counsel, only paper delivery was effected and the petitioners continue to remain in physical possession. He would therefore state that a fair opportunity may be given to the petitioners to contest the decree on merits. He would further state that the petitioners had given satisfactory reasons, explaining the delay of 305 days and unfortunately, the trial Court, without considering the same and without adopting a liberal approach, has dismissed the condoned delay application on hyper-technical considerations. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further state that the petitioners would cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit and the petitioners can also be put on terms as otherwise their valuable right to possession and interest in the immovable property would be lost forever.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff, Mr.A.Umasankar, would state that the revision petition has become infructuous and even as early as on 07.01.2026, with the aid of police, the respondent/ plaintiff has taken possession through Court process and the same has also been recorded in the EP proceedings. He would further state that the petitioners have also suppressed the factum of a caveat having been filed while moving the above revision and suppressing the caveat, the petitioners have obtained an interim stay on 29.01.2026, as if the petitioners continue to be in physical possession, suppressing the factum of caveat as well.

6.The learned counsel for the respondent would further state that the respondent has been put in physical possession and the same is evidenced by Bailiff’s reports dated 07.01.2026, which has also been recorded in the daily adjudications in E.P.No.1798 of 2024 on 02.02.2026. The learned counsel for the respondent would further state that the petitioners have not made out any cause, much le