Disposed¶28

K. Ravi v. Palanivel

Madras HC16 Dec 2025CRP/1677/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court CRP No.1677 of 2025, P.B. Balaji J, 16.12.2025; Section 115 CPC revision against dismissal of condone delay applications; set aside exparte preliminary decree and final decree; O.S.No.463 of 2002, I.A.No.2 of 2024; Order IX Rule 7 CPC; dismissal for non-prosecution; condonation to be decided on merits within four weeks; Sholinganallur District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate; parties to work out rights; no costs; connected CMP closed.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition disposed of: the trial court's dismissal of the condonation-of-delay applications is set aside and those applications are to be decided on merits within four weeks; parties at liberty to work out their rights subject to those orders; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶28

K. Ravi Vs Palanivel — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's dismissal of the applications for condonation of delay seeking to set aside the preliminary decree and final decree (I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.463 of 2002) should be set aside and the applications decided on merits. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.2 of 2024 dismissing the applications for condonation of delay seeking to set aside the preliminary decree and final decree is set aside, and the said applications shall be decided on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Unless the applications for condonation of delay are taken up first, the applications to set aside the preliminary decree and final decree cannot be decided.

¶26

Key takeaways

Subject to the orders being passed in the condone delay application, the parties are at liberty to work out their respective rights.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC by defendants/petitioners against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.01.2025 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, dismissing their applications for condonation of delay filed to set aside an exparte preliminary decree and final decree in O.S.No.463 of 2002 (I.A.No.2 of 2024). Held: since the applications to set aside the preliminary and final decrees cannot be decided unless the condonation applications are taken up first, the dismissal order is set aside and the condonation applications are to be decided on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; subject thereto the parties may work out their respective rights. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

CRP No.1677 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

CRP.No.1677 of 2025 and CMP No.9669 of 2025

¶7

1.K.Ravi 2.K.Sundar 3.S.Kala 4.Maheswari 5.K.Baskar ... Petitioners Vs. 1.Palanivel 2.Selvarani ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.01.2025 made in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.463 of 2002 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sundararajan For RR.1,2,5 and 6 Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar For R.3 and R.4

¶10

1/4

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

CRP No.1677 of 2025

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard Mr.P.Krishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, learned counsel for the respondents 1,2,5 and 6 and

¶15

Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as against the exparte preliminary decree and final decree, the petitioners have filed four applications – to condone the delay as well as to set aside the preliminary decree and final decree respectively. The condone delay applications filed seeking to set aside the preliminary decree as well as the final decree, have been dismissed, as against which, the present revision has been filed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners would bring to my notice that

¶18

there is also another revision filed challenging the dismissal of the condone delay petition as against the final decree proceedings and the same is yet to be numbered.

¶19

Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, learned counsel appearing for the

¶20

respondents 1,2,5 and 6 and Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶21

2/4

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

CRP No.1677 of 2025

¶24

respondents 3 and 4 would fairly bring to my notice that the application in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.463 of 2002 was dismissed only for nonprosecution and therefore, the parties may be relegated to the trial Court and the application can be decided on merits within a time bound manner.

¶25

I find fairness in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. However, as rightly pointed out by Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, the preamble to the order in I.A.No.2 of 2024 proceeds on the basis that I.A. No.2 of 2024 has been filed under Order IX Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the final decree.

¶26

Unless the applications for condonation of delay are taken up first,

¶27

the applications to set aside the preliminary decree and final decree cannot be decided.

¶28

In the light of the above, the civil revision petition is disposed of in the following manner:-

¶29

(i) the order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.2 of 2024 dismissing the applications for condonation of delay in seeking to

¶30

3/4

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.1677 of 2025

P.B.BALAJI.,J

set aside the preliminary decree and final decree are set aside and the said applications shall be decided on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶36

(ii) subject to the orders being passed in the condone delay application, the parties are at liberty to work out their respective rights.

¶37

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

16.12.2025

¶39

sr Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶40

¶41

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur

¶42