Poongodi vs Velusamy
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRP No.5825 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.5825 of 2026
and
C.M.P.No.25203 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012184672026}
Poongodi
..Petitioner
Vs
1. Velusamy
Ramayee (Deceased)
2. N.Velumani
3. N.Dhavamani
4. Rajathi
5. K.Ramesh
6. N.M.Thangavel
7. State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its District Collector,
Erode District, Erode Collector Office,
Perundurai Road, Erode.
8. District Revenue Officer
Erode District, Erode Collector Office,
Perundurai Road, Erode.
9. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Brough Road, Erode – 1. ..Respondents
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP No.5825 of 2026
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
praying to set aside the docket order dated 22.08.2026 passed in unnumbered
I.A.Sr.No.4554 of 2026 in O.S.No.355 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional
District Munsif, Erode and to number the I.A.Sr.No.4554 of 2026.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sharath Chandran
for Mr.N.S.Amogh Simha
For Respondents : Mr.C.E.Pratap [R1]
Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi
Additional Government Pleader [R7 to R9]
*
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the docket order dated 22.08.2026 passed in
unnumbered I.A.Sr.No.4554 of 2026 in O.S.No.355 of 2020 on the file of the II
Additional District Munsif, Erode, refusing to entertain the application filed by
the petitioner/seventh defendant to set aside the ex parte order dated
27.08.2022.
2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the
materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.
3. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.355 of 2020
before the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, seeking for the relief of
declaration of title and permanent injunction. The defendants did not contest the
case and they were set ex parte and ultimately, the suit came to be dismissed by
judgment and decree dated 15.06.2023. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP No.5825 of 2026
passed by the trial Court, the first respondent/plaintiff filed A.S.No.34 of 2024
before the I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. The appellate Court, by
judgment and decree dated 30.06.2025, allowed the appeal and remanded the
matter back to the file of the trial Court in the following terms:
“The Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Decree and Judgment
passed in OS.No:355/2020 on 15.3.2023 by the IInd Additional District
Munsif Court, Erode, and remanding the matter back to the IInd
Additional District Munsif Court, Erode with direction to readmit the
suit in same number, further the appellant side directed to take necessary
steps to amend the plaint by adding concern government authorities
comes under the head of State of Tamil Nadu in respect of the core issue
of the matter and amendment process to be done within two weeks and
afford a fair opportunities to both sides inclusive of plaintiff and D1 to
D7 along with the government authorities to adduce evidence along with
the documents in crux of the matter and dispose the suit afresh. The
Trial court shall dispose of the case within 4 months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The parties are directed to bear their
own cost.”
4. After the suit was remanded back to the file of the trial Court, on
12.08.2025, the trial Court found that the Court notice was served on defendants
2, 4 to 7 and there was no appearance on their side and hence, they were set ex
pare and while doing so, the Court below took into consideration the fact that
they were set ex parte even in the earlier round of litigation. The petitioner
herein is the seventh defendant.
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP No.5825 of 2026
5. The evidence on the side of the first respondent/plaintiff was recorded
and documents were marked and the Court below reserved the suit for passing
judgment. At this stage, the interlocutory application came to be filed by the
petitioner/seventh defendant to set aside the ex parte order dated 27.08.2022.
6. The Court below refused to entertain this application considering the
conduct of the petitioner/seventh defendant and also taking note of the fact that
the petitioner/seventh defendant had received the notice on 30.07.2025 and was
set ex parte in the proceedings dated 12.08.2025 whereas the application to set
aside the ex parte order was filed only during the month of August’2026 when
the Court below had reserved the suit for passing final judgment. Aggrieved by
the said order, the present revision has been filed before this Court.
7. The main ground urged on the side of the petitioner/seventh defendant
is that the Court below has erroneously come to the conclusion that the
petitioner/seventh defendant was already set ex parte on 27.08.2022 and
therefore, when the matter came up on 12.08.2025, the same was recorded and
the Court below proceeded further with the suit. It is submitted that the Court
below ought not to have taken into consideration the fact that the
petitioner/seventh defendant was set ex parte in the year 2022 since when the
appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2024 was disposed of, the appellate Court had
specifically directed that fair opportunity must be given to the first
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP No.5825 of 2026
respondent/plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 and therefore, the fact that the
petitioner/second defendant was set ex parte on 27.08.2022 automatically gets
wiped off and what has to be taken into consideration is the service of summons
after the remand and the conduct of the petitioner/seventh defendant thereafter.
8. It is further contended that the first respondent/plaintiff has sought for
the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and the petitioner/seventh
defendant is the only effectively contesting defendant since the property has
been sold in his favour by defendants 2 to 6, who are the original owners and
they are no longer interested in contesting the case. Hence, a request was made
to give an opportunity to the petitioner/seventh defendant.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent/plaintiff
submitted that the petitioner/seventh defendant has exhibited a callous conduct
right through. It is submitted that even in the earlier round, the
petitioner/seventh defendant did not choose to contest the case and was set ex
parte on 27.08.2022. Even after remand, summon was served on the
petitioner/seventh defendant and the petitioner/seventh defendant did not choose
to contest the case and right from 12.08.2025 till August’2026 when the trial
Court reserved the suit for pronouncing judgment, no steps were taken by the
petitioner/seventh defendant to file any application to set aside the ex parte
order. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner/seventh defendant has
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP No.5825 of 2026
intentionally kept quite and when the trial Court was about to pass a judgment,
the present application was filed and the trial Court has rightly rejected the same
considering the conduct of the petitioner as well as taking note of the fact that
the appellate Court has fixed a time frame for the disposal of the suit.
10. As contended by learned counsel for petitioner/seventh defendant the
fact that the petitioner/seventh defendant was set ex parte even during the
earlier round of litigation on 27.08.2022 is not relevant for the simple reason
that the suit came to be dismissed and in the appeal, the decree passed by the
trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the file of the trial
Court with a specific direction that the first respondent/plaintiff and defendants
1 and 7 must be given an opportunity to contest the suit. Therefore, what is
relevant is to take note of the happenings after the remand of the suit to the trial
Court.
11. The proceedings dated 12.08.2025 shows that notice was served on
petitioner/seventh defendant and for some reason, the petitioner/seventh
defendant did not choose to engage a counsel nor was he present before the
Court. Therefore, the proceedings dated 12.08.2025 must be taken to be date on
which the petitioner/seventh defendant was actually set ex parte in this case.
Having held so, this Court must see the conduct of this petitioner/seventh
defendant thereafter.
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP No.5825 of 2026
12. As rightly contended by learned counsel for first respondent/plaintiff,
the petitioner/seventh defendant did not move his little finger till August’2026.
In the mean time, the trial Court had recorded the evidence on the side of first
respondent/plaintiff and the documents were marked and the suit was at the
stage of pronouncing final judgment. The trial Court was also under time
constraint to complete the suit since the appellate Court had fixed a time frame
for the completion of the suit. This conduct on the part of the petitioner/seventh
defendant is certainly questionable and there is no satisfactory answer
forthcoming from the petitioner/seventh defendant.
13. Under such circumstances, this Court is taking into consideration the
fact that in the earlier round, the suit came to be dismissed and later, the appeal
was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the file of the trial Court.
This Court is also taking into consideration the fact that a substantive relief has
been sought for by the first respondent/plaintiff for declaration of title and
permanent injunction and the petitioner/seventh defendant, being the purchaser
of the property, will loose the property if he does not contest this suit.
Therefore, one chance can be given to the petitioner/seventh defendant by
putting him on terms. It is brought to the notice of this Court that along with the
application to set aside the ex parte order, written statement has also been filed
by the petitioner/seventh defendant.
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP No.5825 of 2026
14. In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the
petitioner/seventh defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as cost to the
account of O.S.No.355 of 2020 on the file of II Additional District Munsif,
Erode, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. On such deposit, the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to withdraw
the same. If this direction is complied with, the Court below shall assign a
number to the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner/seventh defendant
to set aside the ex parte order and allow the same and take the written statement
filed by the petitioner/seventh defendant on file. Thereafter, the Court below
shall complete the trial and the proceedings in O.S.No.355 of 2020 and pass a
final judgment within a period of three (3) months thereafter. Accordingly, the
docket order dated 22.08.2026 passed in unnumbered I.A.Sr.No.4554 of 2026 in
O.S.No.355 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, is set
aside in the above terms. It is made clear that if the cost is not deposited by the
petitioner/seventh defendant within the time frame fixed by this Court, the order
passed by the Court below on 22.08.2026 will stand revived.
In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed in the above terms. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gm
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP No.5825 of 2026
To
The II Additional District Munsif,
Erode.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP No.5825 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
gm
Civil Revision Petition No.5825 of 2026
16-10-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )