Revision against refusal to set aside ex-parte decree for arrears of rent. Court allowed the revision subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- within three months; on compliance the trial court was directed to set aside the decree and dispose of the suit on merits by 30.06.2027.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.07.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 6017 of 2025
S.Kanniappan
..Petitioner
Vs
S.Sankaralingam
..Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.08.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.407 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Venugopal For Respondent(s): No appearance
ORDER
This revision has been filed to set aside the order dated 19.08.2025 in
I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.407 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi.
2.Heard Mr.P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3.The respondent, despite service of notice, has not chosen to appear
either in person or through counsel and his name is also printed in today’s cause
list. The respondent is called and set ex-parte.
Page1 of 4
4.The suit in O.S.No.407 of 2019 was filed by the respondent, as plaintiff, seeking recovery of Rs.1,02,000/-, towards alleged arrears of rent. According to the petitioner, though he engaged a counsel, the petitioner suffered from Jaundice and he went to Pollachi to take native treatment and he was under the bonafide impression that his counsel, who had been engaged to defend him in the suit, would take care of the matter and he came to know of the ex-parte decree only after receipt of notice in the execution proceedings.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner has substantial defense in the suit and along with the application to condone delay and set aside the ex-parte, written statement has also been filed. Further, according to the petitioner, the petitioner entered into the property as a tenant under one Arumugam and he has been paying rents month after month to the said Arumugam and the respondent/plaintiff, who is not the landlord of the petitioner, was not entitled to claim any rent, much less arrears of rent which is the basis of the suit claim.
6.In view of the above, considering the fact that the petitioner has recognised a third party as landlord and has been paying rents to such third party and has also come forward to contest the suit on merits, I am inclined to given one opportunity to him to contest the suit. However, considering the fact
Page2 of 4
that the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application is vague and does not meet the entire period of delay, which is sought to be excused, I am inclined to put the petitioner on suitable terms which would sufficiently protect the interest of the respondent/plaintiff as well, in the event of the suit ultimately being disposed of in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
7.In the light of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 19.08.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.407 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, is set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.50,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.407 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, within a period of three months from today and subject to such compliance, the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, shall set aside the ex-parte decree, and after formally numbering the Order IX Rule 13 application, shall dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with law, on or before 30.06.2027, and subject to the result of the suit, the plaintiff or the defendant shall be entitled to payment out of the amount of Rs.50,000/-, which will be deposited in pursuance of the conditional order passed herein above. No costs.
16.07.2026
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA
Page3 of 4
P.B.BALAJI, J.
ATA
To The Subordinate Court, Pollachi.
CRP No.6017 of 2025
16.07.2026
__________ Page4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the ex-parte decree against the petitioner should be set aside on terms, given his alleged illness and substantial defence.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Kanniappan
S.Sankaralingam
P.B. Balaji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
