IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(arising out of SLP (C) No. of 2026)

(@ Diary No.23863/2023)

MOHAMMADBI & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MARY REGINA (DIED) & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

This appeal arises out of the order dated 31.03.2023 passed

by the High Court of Madras in C.R.P. No. 758 of 2023. The said revision arose out of the order dated 06.02.2023 passed in I.A. No. 2 of 2021 in O.S. No. 1000 of 2024 by the learned I^st Additional District Munsif Judge, Salem, refusing to condone the delay of 4,477 days in the filing of an application to set aside the ex

parte decree dated 11.11.2008.

Significantly, the trial court had only rejected the condone

delay application and, in consequence, had not taken up for consideration the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Digitally signed by, for setting aside the decree dated

Signature Not Verified

11.11.2008.

babita pandey

Date: 2026.01.09

Reason:

1 For short “CPC”

Ignoring this aspect of the matter the High Court, while allowing C.R.P. No. 758/2023, not only condoned the delay of 4,477 days in the filing of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC but also proceeded to set aside the ex parte decree dated 11.11.2008 and directed the trial court to conduct the suit proceedings afresh and endeavour to dispose it of within a period of three months.

This course of action was not open to the High Court as the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was yet to be considered by the trial court and the High Court could not have stepped into the shoes of the trial court in that regard. The only issue that was before the High Court was that of condonation of the delay of 4,477 days in the filing of the application for setting aside the decree.

We may note that, by order dated 25.08.2023, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 31.03.2023.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court in so far as it pertains to condonation of the delay in the filing of the application for setting aside the decree.

However, the later portion of the impugned order setting aside the ex parte decree and directing the trial court to take up the suit proceedings afresh is set aside. The trial court may now consider the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties.

The impugned order dated 31.03.2023 is set aside to the aforestated extent. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

......................J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

......................J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 08, 2026.

ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.12 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 23863/2023 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-03-2023 in CRP No. 758/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras]

MOHAMMADBI & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS MARY REGINA (DIED ) & ORS. Respondent(s)

FOR ADMISSION Date : 08-01-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN For Petitioner(s) Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Hari Krishnan P.v, Adv.

Mr. C Adhikeshavan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Punit Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, AOR UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in part in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(BABITA PANDEY) (PREETI SAXENA) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed order is placed on the file)