Allowed¶31

P.Priyanka v. Mythili Mohan

Madras HC7 Jul 2026CMP/15983/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of dismissed revision petition; CRP.No.2228 of 2026 restored; CMP allowed; dismissal for no representation on 09.06.2026; undertaking affidavit filed 08.06.2026; fault of then counsel; petitioner should not suffer; direction to vacate and hand over vacant possession to respondent-landlady within four months; alleged huge arrears of rent; dismissal on merits contention; Madras High Court; P.B. Balaji J.; Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of CRP.No.2228 of 2026 to file. ¶31

P.Priyanka Vs Mythili Mohan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP No. 15983 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

CMP No. 15983 of 2026 in CRP.No.2228 of 2026

¶7

P.Priyanka D/o. Prem Kumar, No.425/2, P-Block, 17th Street, 6th Avenue, Tower View Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40.

¶8

..Appellant(s)

¶9

¶10

Mythili Mohan W/o.Mohan, Adora A4901, old Mahabalipuram Road, Padur, Kancheepuram Dist 603 103. 2. R.Veeralakshmi Prop. of M/s.Sun Homes, No.425/2 P Block, 17th Street, 6th Avenue, Tower View Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Also at No.107, G1 Elite Enclave, Elagovadigai Street, Near Thirumullaivoyil Station, Senthil Nagar, Tirumullaivoyil, Chennai.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

To restore CRP.No.2228 of 2026 dismissed on 09-06-2026 to file. For Appellant(s): Mr.B.Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr.Kingston Jerold for R1 R2 not ready in notice

¶13

Page1 of 4

¶14

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

¶15

CMP No. 15983 of 2026

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application has been filed to restore CRP.No.2228 of 2026, that has

¶18

been dismissed on 09.06.2026.

¶19

I have heard Mr.B.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Kingston Jerold, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the revision

¶21

was adjourned to 09.06.2026 from 02.06.2026 and in terms of the undertaking given to the Court, an affidavit was duly filed before the Registry of this Court on 08.06.2026. Unfortunately, when the matter was called on 09.06.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner, which resulted in dismissal of the revision petition, directing the revision petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the respondent-landlady, within a period of four months. This order is now sought to be recalled.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to the undertaking affidavit and also the factum of the said affidavit having been duly filed before the Registry on 08.06.2026, well before the order dated 09.06.2026. However, a copy of the said affidavit of undertaking has not been served in advance on the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

__________ Page2 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

CMP No. 15983 of 2026

¶26

Be that as it may, in view of the undertaking to vacate the premises

¶27

within a period of four months having been filed on 08.06.2026 and the same not having been brought to the notice of the Court for the fault of the then counsel, the petitioner should not suffer.

¶28

The learned counsel for the respondent would however submit that the

¶29

CRP was not dismissed for non-prosecution, but on merits. He would further contend that the petitioner is in huge arrears of rent and the respondent-landlady should not suffer, on account of the lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner.

¶30