Dismissed¶42

S.Senthil Kumari, v. K. Appavu,(Died)

Madras HC2 Apr 2026CRP/2066/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: condonation of delay; delay of 320 days; set aside ex parte decree; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Civil Revision Petition C.R.P.No.2066 of 2022; O.S.No.240 of 2009; I.A.No.727 of 2014; suit for Specific Performance; agreement of sale; Execution Petition; sale deed executed by the Court; notice in execution; 1st Additional Subordinate Judge Salem; legal representatives impleaded (C.M.P.Nos.21993, 21996, 21997 of 2024); reasons for delay must be explained; no casual condonation without explanation; K. Kumaresh Babu.

What did the court decide?

None - the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs; the prayer to set aside the Trial Court's order was refused. ¶42

S.Senthil Kumari, Vs K. Appavu,(Died) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs; the prayer to set aside the Trial Court's order was refused.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application to condone the delay of 320 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, given the petitioner's failure to explain the delay.

¶22

Court's answer

From the records, the petitioner had entered appearance, filed a written statement, and was aware of the posting of the suit proceedings on 01.09.2010, the date on which the petitioner was set ex parte.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay did not disclose any step taken by the petitioner to follow the proceedings on 01.09.2010.

¶38

Key takeaways

No reason whatsoever was stated for the delay of one year in filing the application to condone the delay.ratio¶38
When no reasons have been attributed for the delay, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner.ratio¶38
The reasons for delay ought to be explained and, without explanation, the Court cannot casually condone the delay.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (K. Kumaresh Babu, J.), C.R.P. No. 2066 of 2022, decided 02.04.2026 - Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.01.2016 of the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, dismissing I.A. No. 727 of 2014 in O.S. No. 240 of 2009 seeking condonation of a delay of 320 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree in a suit for Specific Performance. The petitioner, who had entered appearance and filed a written statement, was set ex parte on 01.09.2010 and the suit was decreed ex parte on 29.09.2010; pursuant to the subsequent Execution Petition, in which notice was served on the petitioner, a sale deed was executed by the Court. The affidavit supporting the condonation application disclosed no step taken to follow the proceedings on 01.09.2010 and stated no reason for the one-year delay in moving the application (filed 14.09.2011; numbered only in 2014). Holding that the reasons for delay must be explained and that without explanation the Court cannot casually condone the delay, the Court found no merits in the Revision Petition and dismissed it with no order as to costs.

¶1

C.R.P.No.2066 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.04.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

C.R.P.No.2066 of 2022

S.Senthil Kumari

.. Petitioner

Versus

K.Appavu (deceased)

¶11

Vijayalakshmi

¶12

Sivaprakasam

¶13

Sasikumar

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

Sole respondent died. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole respondent viz., K.Appavu vide Court order, dated 08.12.2025 made in C.M.P.No.21993, 21996 and 21997 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2066 of 2022

¶16

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.727 of 2014 in O.S.No.240 of 2009, dated 25.01.2016 on the file of the learned 1^st Additional Sub ordinate Judge at Salem allowing the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Achuthanandan For Respondents : R1- Died : Mr.B.Sundarapandian, for RR-2 to 4

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.No.2066 of 2022

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Civil Revision Petition is against the fair and decretal order, whereby, the Trial Court had dismissed the application to condone the delay of 320 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree.

¶23

Mr.V.Achuthanandan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

¶24

that the suit for Specific Performance had been initiated by the deceased sole respondent on the strength of an agreement of sale that he had entered with the first defendant from whom the petitioner had purchased the property. He submits that when the matter was listed for hearing on 01.09.2010, the petitioner was suffering from Jaundice and he was set ex parte on the said date and the suit was proceeded to be decided ex parte on 29.09.2010. Immediately, on knowing of the said fact, he had taken out an application to set aside the ex parte decree. Without considering the same, by only taking into consideration that pursuant to the Execution Petition filed in that regard, in which notice has also been served upon the petitioner, sale deed had been executed by the Court and therefore, there is no necessity to set aside the ex parte decree and hence, the delay need not be condoned. He submits that the execution of the sale deed pursuant to the execution proceedings cannot be put against the petitioner to reject his

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

C.R.P.No.2066 of 2022

¶28

lawful claim to condone the delay in setting aside the ex parte decree and also to consider the application to set aside the ex parte decree. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

¶29

Countering his arguments, Mr.B.Sundarapandian, learned Counsel

¶30

for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are the legal heirs of the deceased sole respondent, submits that the suit was decreed ex parte on 29.09.2010 and only after a year, the application to set aside the ex parte decree had been filed. He further submits that even in the Execution Petition, the petitioner

¶31

had been set ex parte and he had not taken any steps to set aside such ex parte decree as he did not state any reason whatsoever as to why inspite of notice in the Execution Petition, he remained ex parte . He further submits that even though the application was filed on 14.09.2011, he had not taken any steps to get the aforesaid Interlocutory Application numbered and the same was numbered only in the year 2014. He further draws the attention of this Court that the order rejecting his application came to be passed in the month of January, 2016, but, the present Revision Petition is even though dated in the month June, 2016, has been filed before this Court in the month of August, 2016. This itself would show that the petitioner had not been diligent enough in prosecuting his claim. He submits that even

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P.No.2066 of 2022

¶35

though the Court below had held the application after the execution of sale deed had been completed, the decree could not be set aside, he submits that no explanation whatsoever had been given by the petitioner for the delay and he seeks dismissal of the Revision Petition.

¶36

I have considered the arguments made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the material records of the case.

¶37

It is an admitted case that the petitioner was set ex parte on 01.09.2010 and thereafter, the matter was decided ex parte on 29.09.2010.

¶38

From the records, it can be seen that the petitioner had entered appearance and had also filed written statement and was aware of posting of the proceedings on 01.09.2010. A reading of the affidavit filed in support of his application to condone the delay do not disclose any step that he had taken to follow the proceedings on 01.09.2010 and there is no reason stated whatsoever as to why there was a delay of one year in filing an application to condone the delay. When no reasons have been attributed, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. It had been categorically held that the reasons for delay ought to be explained and without explanation, the Court cannot casually condone the delay.

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

C.R.P.No.2066 of 2022

¶42

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merits in the Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

02.04.2026

¶44

Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : yes/no grs To

¶45

The I Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Salem.

¶46

5/6

¶47

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

¶48

C.R.P.No.2066 of 2022