Allowed¶27

A. Murugesan v. B. Saravankumar

Madras HC16 Apr 2025CRP/602/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition; Article 227 Constitution of India; Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Section 151 CPC; set aside ex-parte decree; condone delay of 728 days; Covid-19 pandemic trial proceedings; conditional deposit Rs.1 lakh on or before 06.06.2025; pronote recovery suit Rs.4 lakhs; O.S.No.43 of 2020; I.A.No.1 of 2024; Sub Judge Uthagamandalam; execution petition notice; trial completion within six months; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; impugned fair and decretal order dated 20.11.2024 set aside on condition of a Rs.1 lakh deposit to the credit of O.S.No.43 of 2020 on or before 06.06.2025; on such deposit the ex-parte decree dated 29.03.2021 stands set aside; petitioner to appear before trial Court on 12.06.2025 and trial to be completed preferably within six months thereafter; no costs. ¶27

A. Murugesan Vs B. Saravankumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/defendant should be afforded sufficient opportunity to contest O.S.No.43 of 2020 — i.e., whether the trial Court's dismissal of the 728-day delay-condonation petition and refusal to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 29.03.2021 ought to stand, given that the trial proceedings took place during the Covid-19 pandemic.

¶26

Court's answer

Since the entire trial proceedings took place during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court held that sufficient opportunity should be extended to the petitioner to contest the suit, subject to certain terms meeting the ends of justice.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The revision petition is allowed and the fair and decretal order dated 20.11.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.43 of 2020 is set aside conditionally: on the petitioner/defendant depositing Rs.1 lakh to the credit of the suit on or before 06.06.2025, the ex-parte decree dated 29.03.2021 stands set aside, the petitioner must appear before the trial Court on 12.06.2025, and the trial Court must endeavour to complete the trial preferably within six months thereafter. No costs.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court | CRP No. 602 of 2025 | A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J. | 16-04-2025. Defendant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Section 151 of CPC, lodged with I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking condonation of a 728-day delay, to set aside the ex-parte decree of 29.03.2021 passed in O.S.No.43 of 2020 (plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.4 lakhs due on pronote), had been dismissed by the Sub Judge, Uthagamandalam (fair and decretal order dated 20.11.2024). The High Court held that as the entire trial proceedings had taken place during the Covid-19 pandemic, sufficient opportunity ought to be extended to the defendant to contest the suit subject to terms. Accordingly the revision was allowed: the impugned order was set aside on condition that the defendant deposits Rs.1 lakh to the credit of the suit on or before 06.06.2025; upon such deposit the ex-parte decree stands set aside, the defendant is to appear before the trial Court on 12.06.2025, and the trial Court is to endeavour to complete the trial preferably within six months thereafter. Costs: none.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-04-2025

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶4

CRP NO. 602 of 2025

¶5

A. Murugesan

¶6

S/o. Aadhipuram, Nagakkonnanur, Vedachandur Post, Dindigul Dt.

¶7

Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

B. Saravankumar S/o. R. Balusamy, No.105, Jail Hill, Ootacamund, The Nilgiris 643 001.

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.43 of 2020 vide order dated 20.11.2024 on the file of the Sub Judge, Uthagamandalam.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K. Hemanathan

¶13

For Respondent(s): M/s.V.Saranraj

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Civil Revision Petition filed, seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 20.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.43 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Judge, Uthagamandalam.

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

2.The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶19

The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.43 of 2020 filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.4 lakhs due on pronote. The petitioner defendant engaged a counsel and since he did not

¶20

appear before the Court, an ex-parte judgment and decree came to be passed on 29.03.2021. The petitioner had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Section 151 of CPC, to set aside the ex-parte decree along with a petition in I.A.No.1 of 2024, to condone the delay of 728 days in filing the petition. During trial proceedings, as the petitioner had not shown any sufficient cause to condone the delay, the petition came to be dismissed. Against which, the present revision has been filed.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the suit summons served on 16.03.2021 on the petitioner during the Covid-19 Pandamic, the petitioner was unable to appear and contest the case and thereby, an ex-parte decree came to be passed on 29.03.2021. He would further submit that the petitioner was affected with Jaundice and thereby, there was a delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. He

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

further submits that the petitioner has got a good case on merits and if the petitioner is not given an opportunity to contest the suit, he will be put to great hardship. Hence, the learned counsel urged that the petition may be allowed on fixation of reasonable terms and costs.

¶25

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the trial Court after taking into consideration the fact that the application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed only after receipt of notice in Execution Petition and there has been a delay of 6 months, the trial Court finding that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for the delay and also some lapses on the part of the petitioner/defendant, has rightly dismissed the application, which requires no interference.

¶26

Heard. Admittedly since the entire trial proceedings had been taken place during Covid-19 Pandemic, this Court is of the opinion that sufficient opportunity could be extended to the petitioner to contest the suit subject to certain terms which would meet ends of justice.

¶27

In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed. The fair and

¶28

3/5

¶29

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

¶30

decretal order dated 20.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.43 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Judge, Uthagamandalam is set aside on condition that the petitioner /defendant shall deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the credit of O.S.No43 of 2020 on or before 06.06.2025. On such deposit being made, ex parte decree dated 29.03.2021 stands set aside and the petitioner shall appear before the Court on 12.06.2025 and the trial Court shall take every endeavour to complete the trial at the earliest, preferably, within a period of six months thereafter. No costs.

¶31

16-04-2025

¶32

¶33

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶34

¶35