Allowed¶26

Gopalakrishnan v. Shanmugam

Madras HC8 Apr 2026CRP/1167/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condone delay 86 days; Order IX Rule 13 application; set aside dismissal of condonation application; exparte decree; benefit of statutory order under enactment; Cultivating Tenants Act eviction decree; cultivating tenants; Revenue Court Myladuthurai; declaration and consequential injunction suit; District Munsif Court Sirkali; IA.No.160/2017; OS.No.205 of 2009; CRP No. 1167 of 2020; Madras High Court; K.Kumaresh Babu J.; jaundice illness reason insufficient; three months time bound direction; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 86 days condoned; District Munsif Court, Sirkali directed to take on record the application under Order IX Rule 13 and pass orders on merits within three months; no order as to costs. ¶26

Gopalakrishnan Vs Shanmugam — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 86 days condoned; District Munsif Court, Sirkali directed to take on record the application under Order IX Rule 13 and pass orders on merits within three months; no order as to costs.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the fair and final order dated 31.01.2019 in IA.No.160/2017 in OS.No.205 of 2009 (District Munsif Court, Sirkali) dismissing the petitioner's application to condone an 86-day delay in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 should be set aside and the delay condoned.

¶15

Court's answer

The delay of 86 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 stands condoned; the learned Judge, District Munsif Court, Sirkali is directed to take the application on record and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within three months from receipt of a copy of this order, with no order as to costs.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

A petitioner who has the benefit of a statutory order under an enactment cannot be allowed to suffer an exparte decree.

¶25

Key takeaways

Even if the eviction order had been obtained by placing incorrect facts and playing fraud upon the Revenue Courts, remedies were provided under the Act and the Civil Courts' jurisdiction had been specifically barred.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (K.KUMARESH BABU, J.), CRP No. 1167 of 2020, decided 08-04-2026: Revision petition by Gopalakrishnan against the fair and final order dated 31.01.2019 of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali in IA.No.160/2017 in OS.No.205 of 2009, which dismissed his application to condone an 86-day delay in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13. The trial court had noted that the suit (filed 2004, transferred 2009) had been pending almost 15 years and that the petitioner's plea of suffering from jaundice lacked details of onset or cure. Holding that a litigant who holds the benefit of a statutory eviction order under the Cultivating Tenants Act cannot be allowed to suffer an exparte decree, the Court condoned the delay, directed the trial court to take the Order IX Rule 13 application on record and dispose of it on merits within three months. No order as to costs.

¶1

CRP No. 1167 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU CRP No. 1167 of 2020 Gopalakrishnan

¶6

..Petitioner(s)

¶7

¶8

Shanmugam 2. Selvakumar

¶9

..Respondent(s)

¶10

Prayer : This petition has been filed to set aside the fair and final order dated 31.01.2019 made in IA.No.160/2017 in OS.No.205 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sirkali.

¶11

For Petitioner(s): M/s.B.Jawahar For Respondent(s): M/s.T.Girish – R1 R2-Served-No appearance

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Girish,

¶14

learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶15

An application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 86 days

¶16

in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 had been dismissed taking note of the fact that the suit had been filed in the year 2004 and that had been transferred to Court in the year 2009 and had been kept pending for almost 15 years. That apart, the Court had also given a finding that even though the

¶17

Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

CRP No. 1167 of 2020

¶20

petitioner had given a reason that he had been suffering from jaundice, he had not given any details as to from which date he had suffered the illness or the date on which he had been cured of the said disease for the said reason to be accepted.

¶21

A suit had been instituted against the petitioner seeking declaration and for consequential injunction of an order passed by the Revenue Court, Myladuthurai and the consequential order passed by the Execution Proceedings as null and void and to restrain the petitioner from in any way taking action against the respondents in respect of the suit properties. The claim of the respondents, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, is that they are the cultivating tenants of the of the petitioner and the petitioner had obtained a decree of eviction under the Cultivating Tenants Act without impleading them. It is to be noted that the petitioner had initiated the proceedings under the Cultivating Tenants Act before the appropriate authority as against the mother of the respondents and was benefitted with an order of eviction. It is also admitted that the father of the respondents had entered into a lease agreement with respect to the lands in issue and the tenancy had also been recorded. As the father of the respondents had died, the petitioner had initiated eviction proceedings against the mother of the respondents for violation of the lease as she being the legal heir continued in the cultivation of the lands. Even if such order had been obtained by placing incorrect facts and playing fraud upon the Revenue Courts,

¶22

Page2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

CRP No. 1167 of 2020

¶25

remedies had also been provided under the Act and the Civil Courts jurisdiction had been specifically barred. In that context, this Court is of the view that the petitioner who had the benefit of a statutory order under an enactment cannot be allowed to suffer an exparte decree.

¶26

For the aforesaid reasons, the delay stands condoned and the learned Judge, District Munsif Court, Sirkali is directed to take on record the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶27

08-04-2026

¶28

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶29

Maya

¶30

¶31

The Judge, District Munsif Court, Sirkali

¶32

__________ Page3 of 4

¶33