IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.No.18343 of 2025

1. Clara

2. Jacintha

3. Louis

4. Regina Cecila

5. Sophiya Irudaya Mary Prema ..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

1. C. L.Selvaraj 2. O.S. Josphine

3. C.S. Santhosh Raj

4. Pauline

5. Mary Josephine

6. Anthony Paul 7. C.J.Augustin

8. The Sub Registrar, Perambakkam Registrar Office, Perambakkam.

9. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District.

10. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

11. The Tahsildar, Thiruvallur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

12. Catherine Arulmary Shyamala

13. Vimala Sagayamary

14. Rita Amalamary

15. Jovitha Nisha 16. A. Lawrance 17. Lancy Philo 18. C.A. Sathish

19. Lilly Mary ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.10 of 2024 in O.S.No.229 of 2010 by the Principal District Munsif Judge, Thiruvallur, and allow I.A.No.10 of 2024 in its entirety and restore the petitioners (D4 to D8) to their original position in the suit.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Santhoshkumar For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Mukunth, Senior Advocate for M/s. Hari Shankar Mani for R1 to R3 Mr.N.Muthuvel, Govt.Adv. For R8 to R11 Mr.R. Rajaram for R5, R6, R12 to R15, R17 and R19

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the exparte order passed against them.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a suit seeking declaration of 2nd respondent’s title over the suit C schedule property and for consequential injunction. They also sought for declaration of title of 3^rd respondent’s title over the B schedule property and for consequential injunction. The petitioners, who were arrayed as defendants 4 to 8 and 1^st defendant in the suit, were set exparte for their non appearance and for non filing of written statement. Therefore, the petitioners and the 1^st defendant filed an application seeking to set aside the exparte order passed against them. The affidavit in support of the petition was sworn by the first defendant. In the said affidavit, it was stated by her that due to health issue, she could not contact his counsel and instruct him suitably and hence, exparte order was passed against her and other petitioners. She also stated in the affidavit that she had sworn the affidavit on behalf of herself and also on behalf of petitioners/defendants 4 to 8. The Trial Court allowed the application only in respect of the first defendant and dismissed the application, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, on the ground that no reason has been stated for the failure of the petitioners to appear before the Trial Court.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners entrusted the matter to the first defendant and she was in charge of prosecuting the case. Due to her ill health, she could not contact their counsel and give suitable instructions. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the trial court, without appreciating the fact that the first defendant was in charge of prosecuting the case, erroneously dismissed the petition.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 1 to 3/defendants would submit that in the affidavit filed by the petitioners no reason was assigned for setting aside the exparte order passed against them and hence, the Trial court rightly dismissed the application as far as the petitioners are concerned.

5. A perusal of the Affidavit filed by the first defendant in support of the petition seeking to set aside the exparte order would indicate that she filed the affidavit not only for herself but also on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, it is clear that she has conducted the case on behalf of the petitioners also. Hence, she filed the sworn affid