Dismissed¶41

Amutha v. P.Meiyappan

Madras HC26 Nov 2025CRP(MD)/2777/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay condonation; Section 115 CPC; Civil Revision Petition; ex parte order in execution; E.P.No.06 of 2020; E.A.No.08 of 2023; O.S.No.93 of 1997; District Munsif Devakottai; 414 days delay; 450 days; Covid-19 pandemic exclusion; explanation for each and every day; illiteracy and hardship plea insufficient; second appeal dismissed for default; decree of 1999; declaration and recovery of possession; 2 cents out of 4.02 cents; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; K.Kumaresh Babu J.; judgment dated 26.11.2025; reserved 09.10.2025; C.M.P(MD)No.16177 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Even assuming the Covid-19 pandemic period is excluded, no reasons were attributed for 414 days of delay; it is a well-settled principle that the reasons for delay ought to have been explained for each and every day. ¶35

Amutha Vs P.Meiyappan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition should be allowed by setting aside the fair and decreetal order dated 15.07.2025 in E.A.No.08 of 2023 in E.P.No.06 of 2020 in O.S.No.93 of 1997, condoning the delay and directing the Court below to take on file the application to set aside the ex parte order. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

For the aforesaid reasons and for the reasons stated by the learned Judge in the impugned order, the Court held that the Civil Revision Petition lacks merits in any manner.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

¶35

Key takeaways

The affidavit stated no reasons whatsoever for the delay in filing the application except pleading that the petitioners are illiterate and that non-condonation would cause them hardship.ratio¶35
In fine, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 C.P.C. dismissed by K.Kumaresh Babu, J. (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, 26.11.2025). The petitioner challenged the fair and decreetal order dated 15.07.2025 of the District Munsif, Devakottai in E.A.No.08 of 2023 in E.P.No.06 of 2020 in O.S.No.93 of 1997, whereby her application to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside an ex parte order dated 12.03.2021 in the execution proceedings was dismissed. Holding that the supporting affidavit disclosed no substantial reasons — only a plea of illiteracy and hardship — that even excluding the Covid-19 pandemic period 414 days of delay went unexplained, and that reasons for delay must be explained for each and every day, the Court agreed with the reasons of the learned Judge below, found the revision devoid of merit, dismissed it without costs and closed the connected C.M.P(MD)No.16177 of 2025.

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.2777 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON : 09.10.2025

¶4

DELIVERED ON: 26.11.2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶7

C.R.P(MD)No.2777 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)No.16177 of 2025

¶8

Amutha

¶9

...Petitioner/Petitioner/ 7^th Respondent/Nil

¶10

Vs.

¶11

P.Meiyappan ...Respondent/Petitioner/ Respondent/Plaintiff

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 15.07.2025 passed in E.A.No.08 of 2023 in E.P.No.06 of 2020 in O.S.No.93 of 1997 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Devakottai and allow this Civil Revision Petition with costs.

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Shwathini

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed to call for the

¶16

records and set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 15.07.2025 passed

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P(MD)No.2777 of 2025

¶20

in E.A.No.08 of 2023 in E.P.No.06 of 2020 in O.S.No.93 of 1997 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Devakottai.

¶21

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, in which the suit properties had been described as measuring 2 cents out of the entire extent of 4.02 cents. It is the case of the respondent that the suit properties in the entirety belongs to his forefathers and that the same had been encroached upon by the petitioner's father along with two other defendants. The suit was originally dismissed by the Court below. Against which, the respondent has preferred an appeal. The appeal suit was allowed by setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court and decreeing the suit. Against which, the petitioner preferred a second appeal, which also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent filed the execution petition seeking delivery of the execution of the suit properties.

¶22

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second appeal filed by the petitioner had been dismissed for default and by taking advantage of the same, the respondent is now attempting to evict

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P(MD)No.2777 of 2025

¶26

the petitioner. He submits that the decree is not executable, as the

¶27

schedule mentioned properties had not been clear and is vague. He submits that the petitioner was unaware of the execution proceedings. In the execution petition, an e x parte order has been passed and on knowing of the same, the petitioner contacted counsel and immediately filed an application to condone the delay in setting aside the ex parte order. However, the Execution Court dismissed the same. He submits that if the delay is not condoned, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and undue action. Hence, he seeks interference of this Court to set aside the impugned order, condone the delay and direct the Court below to take on file the application to set aside the ex parte order.

¶28

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that having failed till the second appeal and having substituted in the place of the first defendant, the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the execution petition and the ex parte order was passed. After nearly 450 days, the petitioner filed the application to set aside the ex parte order along with the application to condone the delay. The present petition has been filed only to protract the proceedings and prevent the respondent from enjoying the fruits of the decree granted in his favour as early as in

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P(MD)No.2777 of 2025

¶32

the year 1999. Even though the second appeal was dismissed for default, no steps were taken to restore the same. Therefore, he prays this Court to

¶33

dismiss the revision.

¶34

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶35

6. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay does not indicate any substantial reasons as to why the delay should be condoned. The ex parte order was passed on 12.03.2021 and there has been no reasons attributed by the petitioner why he had not inspite of being served with the summons appeared before the Court and allowed them to be set ex parte . Even assuming that the Covid -19 Pandemic period is to be excluded, there is no reasons attributed for 414 days of delay. It is well settled principle of law that the reasons for delay ought to have been explained for each and every day. In the affidavit, no reasons whatsoever had been stated as to why there has been a delay in filing the application except to plead that the petitioners are illiterate and it would cause them hardship if the delay is not condoned.

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

C.R.P(MD)No.2777 of 2025

¶39

7. This court is unable to comprehend such an application. For the

¶40

aforesaid reasons and for the reasons stated by the learned Judge in the order impugned, this court is of the view that the Civil Revision petition lacks merits in any manner.

¶41

8. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

26.11.2025

¶43

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn

¶44

¶45

1.The District Munsif, Devakottai.

¶46

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶47

5/6

¶48