BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 10/03/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and C.M.P(MD).Nos.7147 of 2025 and 981 of 2026 P.Manisundar, ... Petitioner Vs Murugan, S/o.(Late) Rathinasamy Nadar, ... Respondent PRAYER :- Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 11.03.2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2024 In I.A.No.2 of 2023 In O.S.No.27 of 2021 in the Court of the Sub Court, Theni District and allow this Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vikram, For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinayak ORDER Heard Mr.Vikram for the petitioner and Mr.Vinayak for the respondent.

2. The Civil Revision Petitioner is the defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to according to their ranks in the suit.

3. This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Theni Distict, in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in I.A.No. 2 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2021, dated 11.03.2025. By that order, the learned Subordinate Judge refused to condone the delay of 63 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree in I.A.No.2 of 2023.

4. The plaintiff and the defendant have entered into a registered agreement of sale on 20.12.2018. In terms of the agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, leaving a balance of Rs.50,000/- to be paid. The pleading, that despite having made all the efforts to convert the sale agreement into a sale deed, the defendant was evading execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff presented O.S.No.27 of 2021 for specific performance. Though the suit was filed on 19.03.2020, it came to be numbered only in 2021.

5. Summons were served to the defendants. Despite opportunities, the defendants did not co-operate with the Court. Hence, they were set ex-parte on 20.09.2021. The matter was posted for filing of proof affidavit. The plaintiff presented his proof affidavit on 16.03.2022 and documents were marked. The matter was listed for hearing on 31.03.2022. On that day, the learned Subordinate Judge heard the arguments on the side of the plaintiff and reserved the matter for judgment. The learned Trial Judge passed a judgment on 21.04.2022 decreeing the suit as prayed for.

6. On coming to know of the ex-parte decree, the defendant presented I.A.No.2 of 2023 to condone the delay of 215 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. On the day, when the matter was called for hearing, the defendant did not present himself in Court. Consequently, on 12.09.2023, the learned Judge dismissed I.A.No.2 of

2023 for default. In order to restore this application, an application ought to have been filed within 30 days. The defendant did not to do so. An application had been filed with a delay of 63 days in I.A.No.3 of 2024 to restore I.A.No.2 of 2023. The learned Judge ordered notice in the application.

7. The plaintiff filed a detailed counter, bringing to the notice of this Court the dilatory tactics of the defendant in prosecuting the case.

8. Upon analysis of the affidavit and the averments in the petition, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the application seeking condonation of delay was devoid of merits. Accordingly, he dismissed the petition. Hence, this revision.

9. I heard the arguments of both sides. I have gone through the records and applied my mind to the facts.

10. This is a suit for specific performance of a registered agreement of sale. It is the case of the defendant that the agreement had been entered, not for the purpose being an agreement to executing a sale deed, but only for a collateral purpose, that is to say for the security for the amount disbursed. As pointed out by Mr.Vikram that during the substantial portion of the suit, right from the time of numbering till the time of ex-parte decree, the country was impacted by COVID-19 pandemic. The same test which could be applied to a person during normal periods cannot be applied in