Plaintiffs challenged the trial Court's setting aside of an ex parte eviction and rent-arrears decree against a bank defendant. The High Court noted the application was filed within 30 days of the ex parte decree and declined interference, dismissing the revision and directing expeditious disposal of the suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R..P.(NPD)(MD).No.3241 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.3241 of 2024 and
C.M.P(MD) No.18710 of 2024
1. Rajaram
The Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank Central Office, No.763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 02.
Represented by its Authorized Agent and Branch Manager, At Nadaikkaru, Methukummal Village, Killiyoor Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent/Petitioner/ Defendant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.201 of 2022 passed by the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, dated 26.09.2024.
1/5
C.R..P.(NPD)(MD).No.3241 of 2024
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Balakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.N.Dilipkumar
O R D E R
The Plaintiffs in O.S.No.201 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court,
Kuzhithurai, are the revision petitioners herein.
2. The above said suit was filed for the relief of eviction and for recover of arrears of rent. The defendant had remained ex parte and an ex parte decree came to be passed on 31.08.2023. An application was filed under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C, to set aside the ex parte decree within 30 days. The said application has been allowed by the trial Court on 26.09.2024.
Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, the trial Court ought to have seen that the wantonly the defendant had remained ex parte and they have filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree only to drag on the proceedings.
2/5
C.R..P.(NPD)(MD).No.3241 of 2024
4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank had contended that immediately after they came to know about the ex parte decree, they have filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the trial Court.
5. Heard both sides.
6. A perusal of the records reveal that the suit is of the year 2022, and the defendant Bank had remained ex parte on 31.08.2023 and an application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed on 27.09.2023 within a period of 30 days. The trial Court has rightly allowed the said application. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the said order.
7. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2022, and the written statement has already been filed by the petitioners, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.201 of 2022 on or before 30.11.2025 .
3/5
C.R..P.(NPD)(MD).No.3241 of 2024
8. With the above said observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
07.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi
To
1. The Sub Court, Kuzhithurai.
3. The Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank Central Office, No.763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 02.
Represented by its Authorized Agent and Branch Manager, At Nadaikkaru, Methukummal Village, Killiyoor Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
4/5
C.R..P.(NPD)(MD).No.3241 of 2024
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.3241 of 2024
07.02.2025
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Was the trial Court correct in allowing the defendant Bank's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree?
Should the revision petitioners' challenge to the setting aside order be sustained on the ground that the defendant deliberately remained ex parte?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajaram
Sherlin Geetha
Bendict Mary
Anitta Mary
The Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank
R.Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
