Allowed¶29

Ramayee v. Vasanthakumar

Madras HC12 Jun 2026CRP/5285/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of 1728 days; restoration of suit dismissed for non-prosecution; O.S.No.28 of 2014; I.A.No.1 of 2022; District Munsif Court, Omalur; Sec.115 C.P.C.; civil revision petition; senior citizen plaintiff aged 72; no medical proof of treatment produced; respondents/defendants ex parte; no appearance despite notice; one more opportunity to contest; no costs; Madras High Court; CRP No. 5285 of 2025; T.V. Thamilselvi J.; decision dated 12-06-2026.

What did the court decide?

Findings in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.28 of 2014 set aside; restoration application allowed, giving the petitioner one more opportunity to contest the case; no costs. ¶29

Ramayee Vs Vasanthakumar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Findings in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.28 of 2014 set aside; restoration application allowed, giving the petitioner one more opportunity to contest the case; no costs.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.28 of 2014 (dismissing the application to restore the suit) should be set aside in this revision under Sec.115 C.P.C. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, supporting the court's inclination to set aside the findings in I.A.No.1 of 2022.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Considering that the petitioner is a 72-year-old senior citizen, one more opportunity is to be given to her to contest the case, otherwise her valuable right to defend the case will be defeated.

¶25

Key takeaways

The findings rendered in I.A.No.1 of 2022 by the District Munsif Court, Omalur are set aside and the restoration application is ordered to be allowed; accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with no costs.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Sec.115 of C.P.C. — Allowed. The petitioner's suit in O.S.No.28 of 2014 before the District Munsif, Omalur (relief of declaration and permanent injunction) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to her absence. Her application to restore the suit (I.A.No.1 of 2022) was filed with a delay of 1728 days and was dismissed by the court below on the ground that no proper reason was assigned, although no medical proof of treatment was produced. The respondents/defendants had remained ex parte and, despite service of notice, none appeared in the revision. Holding the petitioner to be a 72-year-old senior citizen entitled to one more opportunity to contest the case, lest her valuable right to defend it be defeated, the Madras High Court (T.V. Thamilselvi J.) set aside the findings in I.A.No.1 of 2022, allowed the restoration application, and allowed the Civil Revision Petition with no costs.

¶1

CRP No. 5285 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 5285 of 2025

¶6

Ramayee W/o.Muthusamy, Vellalapatti Main Road, Karuppur Town, Omalur Taluk, Salem District

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

Vasanthakumar

¶10

S/o.Srinivasan, res at Thattanchavadi Pallam, Vellalapatti Main Road, Karuppur Town, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶11

Srinivasan

¶12

S/o.Ramagounder, res at Thattanchavadi Pallam, Vellalapatti Main Road, Karuppur Town, Omalur Taluk, salem District

¶13

Bagiam

¶14

W/o.Srinivasan, res at Thattanchavadi Pallam, Vellalapatti Main Road, Karuppur Town, Omalur Taluk, salem District

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

PRAYER

¶17

Civil Revision Petition filed under Sec.115 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in IA No.1 of 2022 in OS No.28 of 2014 dated 11.06.2024 on the file of the District Munsif at Omalur.

¶18

__________ Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

CRP No. 5285 of 2025

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Munuraj G For Respondent(s): No Appearance

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.28 of 2014 by the learned District Munsif Court, Omalur, the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff had preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶24

Before the trial court, he filed the suit in O.S.No.28 of 2014 seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Due to his absence, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, he filed an application to restore the suit, but there is a delay of 1728 days arose in filing the said application. Therefore, he filed application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and the same was dismissed stating that no proper reason was assigned. Aggrieved over that findings, this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

¶25

3.Admittedly, the respondents/defendants remained exparte. However, on seeing the contentions made by the Revision Petitioner, she prayed to condone the delay of 1728 days, but she has not produced any medical proof that she was under treatment. Admittedly, she is 72 year age old lady and she filed the suit in the year 2014 in O.S.No.28 of 2014 seeking for the relief of declaration and other consequential relief in respect of suit property. Considering the fact that she is a senior citizen, one more opportunity is to be given to her to contest the

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

CRP No. 5285 of 2025

¶29

case, otherwise, her valuable right to defend the case will be defeated. Furthermore, despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondents. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the findings rendered in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 in O.S.No.28 of 2024 by the District Munsif Court, Omalur and the said application is ordered to be allowed. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶30

12-06-2026

¶31

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

¶32

RPP

¶33

¶34

The District Munsif Court, Omalur.

¶35

__________ Page3 of 4

¶36