Rama Gounder Vs Muthu

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order dated 19.03.2025 in I.A.No.725 of 2022 in O.S.No.109 of 2019 passed by Principal District Munsif Court, Thirukovilur.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar

¶12

For Respondent : Mrs.R.Poornima

¶13

ORDER

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

CRP No.4420 of 2025

¶17

Heard Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar, the learned counsel for the revision

¶18

petitioner and Mrs.R.Poornima, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶19

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.109 of 2019,

¶20

aggrieved by the order condoning the delay in filing the application to set

¶21

aside the exparte decree made by the respondent/4th defendant in the suit.

¶22

It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that the respondent

¶23

had refused to receive summons and subsequently, along with other defendants, he has also been set exparte and decree has been passed on 03.08.2021. The defendants have not chosen to file any application to set

¶24

aside the exparte decree and it is only the fourth defendant who has come

¶25

forward with the application.

¶26

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

¶27

defendants 1 to 3 are the actual owners of the properties and the fourth 2/7

¶28

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

¶29

CRP No.4420 of 2025

¶30

defendant is only a formal party and though he claims ownership, it is being

¶31

disputed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. He would therefore state that the

¶32

trial court ought not to have allowed the application to condone the delay of

¶33

401 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/fourth defendant

¶35

would submit that at no point of time, the respondent was served with summons. The categorical case of the respondent before the trial court was

¶36

that he was never served with summons and he came to know about the suit

¶37

only in the police station on 15.09.2022 and immediately, thereafter, an application was filed on 10.10.2022, within the period of thirty days . He would further state that the respondent has only been set exparte pursuant to

¶38

the paper publication being effected and not on account of refusal of summons. Learned counsel for the respondent further states that the cost of Rs.3,000/-awarded by the trial Court to condone the delay has already been

¶39

deposited before the trial Court and she would therefore pray for dismissal 3/7

¶40

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

¶41

CRP No.4420 of 2025

¶42

of the revision.

¶43

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on

¶44

either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶45

The trial Court has found that the respondent would have to be

¶46

given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits.

¶47

The trial court also, taking into consideration the arguments

¶48

advanced by the plaintiff as well as the fourth defendant in the condone delay application, found that the respondents had no occasion to know about the exparte decree, since he was set-exparte even in the initial stage

¶49

itself. It is the admitted position that the respondent was set exparte only pursuant to paper publication being effected. If really the respondents had

¶50

refused to receive summons in the suit, then, there would be no necessity

¶51