IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 19.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI R.Thenmozhi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Ramasamy gounder (died)

2. Kandasamy gounder

3. Krishnamoorthi 4. M.Shanmugam 5. K.Shanmugham

6. Arunachalam ... Respondents Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition SR filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgement and decree dated 14.10.2003 in O.S.No.726 of 2003 on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal and declare the said judgement and decree as null and void.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy

O R D E R

The objections raised by the Registry of this Court are upheld. I do not find any justification for the revision petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India straight away to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree on the ground that the judgment is not a speaking one.

2. In the judgment of this Court in D.Rasappan Vs.

D.Rajalakshmi reported in 2025 (4) CTC 337, it has been categorically held as follows:

“19. If a non-speaking ex parte judgment is passed, it can be set aside in an Appeal or Review or under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, subject to the law of limitation. It cannot be set aside in a proceeding seeking to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

3. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is rejected at the SR stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal in accordance with law, subject to the law of limitation. No costs.

19.02.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order kv To The Sub Court, Namakkal.

P.B.BALAJI, J.

kv

19.02.2026