Allowed

G.Mahalingam and 2 Others v. Hema Padmanabhan and 2 Others

Madras HC1 Apr 2026A/5593/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an application to set aside an order by a Master that rejected a plea to condone delay in setting aside an ex parte decree. The Court granted one further opportunity to the applicants, subject to a security deposit.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed on condition of depositing Rs. 25,00,000/- within four weeks, else automatic dismissal.

G.Mahalingam and 2 Others Vs Hema Padmanabhan and 2… — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-04-2026

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶4

A.Nos.5593 and 5594 of 2025 in

¶5

C.S.No.108 of 2022

¶6

1.G.Mahalingam 2.M.Pradeep 3.M.Ramajayam

¶7

..Applicants

¶8

¶9

1.Mrs.Hema Padmanabhan 2. Mr.Vijay Balaji Padmanabhan 3.Mr.Vivek Balaji Padmanabhan

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Prayer: This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 12 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC., praying to set aside the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by learned Master in A.No.6229 of 2023 in C.S.No.108 of 2022.

¶12

For Applicants : Mr.S.Rajendrakumar

¶13

*********** O R D E R

¶14

This application has been filed by the applicants/defendants under Order

¶15

XIV Rule 12 of the Original Side Rules to set aside the order dated 27.10.2025

¶16

passed by the learned Master in A.No.6229 of 2023. The said application before

¶17

the learned Master was one to condone the delay in filing an application to set

¶18

aside the ex parte decree dated 26.04.2023 passed in the summary suit.

¶19

Page1 of 3

¶20

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

¶21

On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Master, this Court finds

¶22

that the learned Master has considered both the oral and documentary evidence let in on either side and has assigned reasons for holding that the explanation offered by the applicants was not satisfactory. At the same time, having regard to the fact that the matter need not be shut out at the threshold, that the delay is not inordinate, and that the dispute arises out of a money suit, this Court is of the view that one further opportunity can be granted to the applicants, subject to stringent terms, so that the matter may be decided on merits.

¶23

Accordingly, A.No.5593 of 2025 is allowed on condition that the

¶24

applicants/petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the credit of C.S.No.108 of 2022 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default of such deposit within the time stipulated, this application shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to this Court. No costs.

¶25

01.04.2026

¶26

nvi

¶27

__________ Page2 of 3

¶28

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

¶29

DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶30

nvi

¶31

A.No.5593 of 2025 in C.S.No.108 of 2022

¶32

01-04-2026

¶33

__________ Page3 of 3

¶34

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

G.Mahalingam and 2 Others v. Hema Padmanabhan and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Mahalingam and 2 Others v. Hema Padmanabhan and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaya Krishnan Vs Prema Krishnamoorthy and 2 others

Sruthi Rajender Alias Sruthi Keerthana Vs Ramana Rao and another

Christian Literature Society Vs M/s.Churchs Auxiliary for Social Action (Casa)

Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam Vs a.T.S.v.S.Siddha Medical College and Hospital

P.K.S.Prashath Alias P.Saiprasad and Another Vs P.Jayalakshmi(Since deceased on 29/072020) 1.S.Saiprabha

Wang Li Vs Vijayalakshmi