Subsequent application to set aside ex parte decree barred after prior dismissal for non-prosecution and lack of diligence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and C.M.P.Nos.2012 & 2022 of 2022 P. Banumathi ..Petitioner in both C.R.P(s)

Vs S. Ramamurthy ..Respondent in both C.R.P(s)

Prayer in C.R.P.No.384 of 2022 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the Order and decree dated 22-12-2021 in I.A.No.295 of 2016 in O.S.No.30/2013 on the file of Sub Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District and thus render justice.

Prayer in C.R.P.No.388 of 2022: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order and decree dated 22.12.2021 in E.A.No.55/2017 in E.P.No.13/2014 in O.S.No.30/2014 on the file of Sub Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Rajarajan (in both C.R.Ps)

For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Vijayarajan For Mr.V.R.Appaswamee (in both C.R.Ps)

COMMON ORDER

C.R.P.No.384 of 2022 has been filed to set aside the to set aside the Order and decree dated 22-12-2021 in I.A.No.295 of 2016 in O.S.No.30/2013 on the file of Sub Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District and C.R.P.No.388 of 2022 has been filed to set aside the order and decree dated 22.12.2021 in E.A.No.55/2017 in E.P.No.13/2014 in O.S.No.30/2014 on the file of Sub Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

2. Heard Mr.R.Rajarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Vijayarajan, learned counsel, representing Mr.V.R.Appswamee, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

3. Mr.R.Rajarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent had instituted a suit for Specific Performance, in which she had also entered appearance, but however, due to the ill-health of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner had not filed the written statement, for which she was set ex parte, and thereafter, an ex parte decree had come to be passed. He would submit that the sale agreement, on which the suit had been laid, itself was a sham and nominal document, as what was entered between the petitioner and the respondent was only a money transaction, for which the petitioner had executed a sale agreement, which is common in the area. He would further submit that the property, worth about Rs.60,00,000/-, could not have been agreed to be sold at the meagre price of Rs.7,00,000/-, and having paid a substantial amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for the balance of Rs.2,00,000/-, the respondent could not have waited till the period of limitation and filed the suit.

4. He would submit that only on receipt of notice in the Execution Petition for delivery of possession, the petitioner had knowledge of the ex parte decree and ex parte order in the Execution Petition, and had taken necessary applications to set aside the decree and the ex parte order made in the Execution Petition. He would submit that the Court below, without considering the claim of the petitioner, particularly with regard to the said agreement of sale, had dismissed the Interlocutory Applications, which causes severe prejudice to the petitioner. He would submit that if the suit is taken for trial, the petitioner would be able to establish that the sale agreement itself was entered into for a loan that was granted to the petitioner. He would submit that the judgment and decree passed ex parte causes unjustifiable enrichment to the respondent and hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

5. Countering his arguments, Mr.Vijayarajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner had entered appearance through a counsel immediately on summons being served, but thereafter remained ex parte. Originally, an order of ex parte was passed and thereafter, the suit came to be decreed in th