Madras HC Gives Property Buyer A Chance To Contest Title Suit, Conditional On Rs 1 Lakh Deposit

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner’s earlier ex parte status in the original proceedings remained relevant after the appellate court set aside the decree and remanded the suit with directions to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard.

The court held

The revision petition was allowed conditionally.

It also directed

The petitioner was directed to deposit ₹1,00,000 as costs within four weeks of receiving the order.

Upon deposit, the trial court must number and allow the application to set aside the ex parte order and take the written statement on file; it must then complete the trial and decide the suit within three months.

If the costs are not deposited within the prescribed period, the trial court’s order refusing the application will stand revived.

No costs were awarded in the revision.

01Facts

The plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed after the defendants were set ex parte.

On appeal, the decree was set aside and the suit remanded, with directions to provide the plaintiff and defendants 1–7, as well as the concerned government authorities, a fair opportunity to adduce evidence.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3

After remand, the petitioner, the seventh defendant and purchaser of the property, was served with notice but was set ex parte on 12 August 2025.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4–6

The trial court recorded the plaintiff’s evidence and reserved the suit for judgment.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4–6

In August 2026, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, accompanied by a written statement.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4–6

The trial court refused to entertain it; the petitioner challenged that docket order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4–6

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner’s earlier ex parte status in the original proceedings remained relevant after the appellate court set aside the decree and remanded the suit with directions to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard.

p. 4, 6 · ¶ 7, 10

ii.Whether, despite the petitioner’s delay in seeking to set aside the post-remand ex parte order, the trial court’s refusal to entertain the application warranted interference under Article 227.

pp. 5–8 · ¶ 6, 9–14

03Law Applied

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

p. 2

It applied the appellate court’s remand direction that the parties be afforded a fair opportunity to contest the suit.

p. 3, 6 · ¶ 3, 10

The Court identified no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision; it balanced the petitioner’s delay and conduct against the remand direction and the consequence of losing a claimed property interest, and granted a further opportunity subject to costs.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 12–14

04Reasoning

The Court held that the petitioner’s 2022 ex parte status in the original proceedings was no longer material because the suit had been dismissed, the decree set aside, and the matter remanded with directions to provide an opportunity to contest.

p. 6 · ¶ 10

The relevant default was the petitioner’s failure to act after being served following remand and being set ex parte on 12 August 2025.

p. 6 · ¶ 11

The Court considered the delay—during which the plaintiff’s evidence was recorded and the suit was reserved for judgment—unexplained and the petitioner’s conduct questionable.

p. 7 · ¶ 12

Nevertheless, because the suit concerned substantive title and the petitioner, as purchaser, risked losing the property without contesting the claim, the Court allowed one opportunity on terms.

p. 7 · ¶ 13