Dismissed¶31

C.Ilamaran v. a.Muthulakshmi

Madras HC9 Dec 2025CRP(MD)/3663/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay condonation refused; 1650 days' delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing petition to set aside ex parte preliminary decree dated 10.03.2020; COVID-19 and economical condition pleaded as grounds; specific performance suit O.S.No.254 of 2018, Subordinate Court, Theni; application I.A.No.1 of 2024 dismissed by Subordinate Judge on 10.10.2025; plaintiff's final decree application I.A.No.96 of 2020; revision under Section 115 CPC dismissed; C.R.P.(MD)No.3663 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, N. Senthilkumar J., decided 09.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

On the materials on record, the petitioner did not give any valid reasons to condone the delay of 1650 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. ¶30

C.Ilamaran Vs a.Muthulakshmi — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition should be allowed and the order of the Subordinate Judge, Theni dated 10.10.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 (refusing to condone a delay of 1650 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree) be set aside.

¶24

Court's answer

On the materials on record, the petitioner did not give any valid reasons to condone the delay of 1650 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The Court below duly considered that the petitioner filed the application only at the stage of final decree proceedings and produced no material to substantiate his case; its order was well reasoned and required no interference.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition dismissed (Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, N. Senthilkumar J., 09.12.2025). The petitioner, defendant in O.S.No.254 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni (a suit by the respondent for specific performance and other reliefs), was set ex parte for not filing a vakalat or written statement, and an ex parte preliminary decree was passed against him on 10.03.2020. He filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 1650 days in filing the petition to set aside that decree, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and his economical condition. The Subordinate Judge, Theni, by order dated 10.10.2025, dismissed the application, observing that it was filed only after the plaintiff sought a final decree in I.A.No.96 of 2020 and that no explanation was offered for the inordinate delay. Upholding this, the High Court found the petitioner had given no valid reasons for the 1650-day delay, had filed the application only at the final decree stage, and had produced no supporting material; the trial court's order was well reasoned and needed no interference. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without costs and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.3663 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.3663 of 2025

¶7

G.Ilamaran ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs.-

¶9

A.Muthulakshmi ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order and decreetal order, dated 10.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.254 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni and allow the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶11

For Petitioner :Mr.L.Prabhu *****

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Theni in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No. 254 of 2018, dated 10.10.2025.

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

C.R.P.(MD)No.3663 of 2025

¶17

2.Heard Mr.L.Prabhu, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner.

¶18

3.The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.254 of 2018 on the

¶19

file of the Subordinate Court, Theni and the petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit. The said suit has been filed for specific performance and for other reliefs. As the petitioner/defendant did not file a vakalat or any written statement, he was set ex parte and an ex parte preliminary decree was passed against the petitioner on 10.03.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1650 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 10.03.2020 on the ground of COVID-19 pandemic and the economical condition of the petitioner.

¶20

4.The learned Subordinate Judge, Theni, vide order, dated 10.10.2025, had dismissed the said application on the ground that only after the application in I.A.No.96 of 2020 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for passing of final decree, this application to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree has been filed and the petitioner has not given explanation

¶21

________________ Page 2 of 6_

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P.(MD)No.3663 of 2025

¶24

for the inordinate delay of 1650 days for filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶25

5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an ex parte order was passed by the trial Court without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and when the petitioner was unaware of the ex parte judgment, he had filed the application to set aside the same. The learned Counsel also submitted that due to COVID-19 pandemic and due to his avocation, the petitioner could not file the application in time and that there is a delay of 1650 days in filing the petition. However, the Court below had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner in a mechanical manner. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Court below has not considered the fact that the right to defend the suit should not be defeated by adopting pragmatic method. The learned Counsel also submitted that the final decree proceedings is now pending and without giving an opportunity to contest the suit, the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, which will cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, he seeks interference of this Court.

¶26

________________ Page 3 of 6_

¶27

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

¶28

C.R.P.(MD)No.3663 of 2025

¶29

6.This Court considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

7.From the perusal of the materials available on record, it is to be seen that the petitioner has not given any valid reasons to condone the delay of 1650 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Further, the Court below has also considered the fact that the petitioner has filed the application only at the time of passing of final decree proceedings and that the petitioner has not produced any material to substantiate his case and after analysing the entire facts and materials available on record, the Court below has passed the well reasoned order, which needs no interference of this Court.

¶31

8.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for devoid of

¶32

merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

09.12.2025 Internet :Yes/No (1/2) NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No cmr

¶34

________________ Page 4 of 6_

¶35

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

¶36

C.R.P.(MD)No.3663 of 2025