IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on: 11.02.2026 Pronounced on:20.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP. Nos.208 & 213 of 2026 and CMP. Nos.859 & 885 of 2026

1.V.Saraswathy

2.V.Mathanagopal

3.V.Umadevi

4.M.Priyadharshini Petitioners in both CRPs Vs

1.P.Sudha

2.K.Hariprasadh

3.J.Kannan Respondents in both CRPs COMMON PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.08.2025 made in I.A. No.2 of 2024 & I.A. No. 4 of 2024 in O.S. No.78 of 2020 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Counsel for Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi in both CRPs For Respondents : Mr.Abdul Saleem, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.VijayaMehanath in both CRPs

COMMON ORDER

The plaintiffs in O.S. No.78 of 2025 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore are the revision petitioners.

2. I have heard Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Abdul Saleem, for Mr.Vijaya Mehanath, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners would state that the Trial Court has erroneously condoned the delay of 67 days in filing the Application to set aside the exparte decree. The respondents had not come to Court with clean hands and in fact, they had set up a false case, as if they did not have any knowledge of the filing of the suit and that they were all along residing only at Coimbatore for the last seven years and that they were not residing at the address mentioned viz., the Kollampalayam, Erode address. Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel would further state that the length of delay is immaterial and the sine quo non is only showing of sufficient cause and if the applicants seeking condonation of delay do not show sufficient cause, then whatever be the length of delay, the applicants are not entitled to condonation of delay.

4. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz., (i) Basant Singh and Another Vs. Roman Catholic Mission, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 531 and (ii) Parimal Vs. Veena Alias Bharti, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 545.

5. Per contra, Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would firstly state that the delay is not inordinate and it is only 67 days. Further, the petitioners have given acceptable documentary evidence to establish that they were residents of Coimbatore only, at the time of the alleged service of summons and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly exercised discretion in their favour by condoning the delay. He would further state that valuable rights of the respondents are at stake and the Trial Court has thought it fit to give a fair opportunity to the respondents to contest the suit on merits. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel on either side.

7. It is the contention of the respondents in the condone delay application that the petitioners as plaintiffs, had given their Kollampalayam, Erode address to be the registered address of the respondents/defendants. However, it is their firm case that for the last seven years, they were residents of Coimbatore and that in this regard, they have filed sufficient documentary evidence as well. The Trial Court has found favour with the reasons assigned by the respondents and the documents filed in support of the application and proceeded to condone the delay and also set aside the exparte decree.

8. However, I am unable to affirm the findings of the Trial Court for more than one reason. Firstly, even though the respondents chose to exhibit as many as 12 documents in the condone delay application to support their case that they were residing in Coimbatore, the Trial Court has lost sight of the fact that equally, the respondents on their side, have exhibited 19 d