Madras High Court
Civil Procedure and EvidenceCivil Law

Opportunity to contest an ex parte decree may be conditioned on depositing admitted consideration with interest.

LAKSHMI vs DURAIYAN

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: September 30, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Opportunity to contest an ex parte decree may be conditioned on depositing admitted consideration with interest.. LAKSHMI vs DURAIYAN. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The respondent filed a specific-performance suit, in which the petitioner-defendant was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 11 January 2018.

Source reference: paras. 2–3, pp. 1–2

The petitioner sought to set aside the decree and condone a delay of 296 days, stating that she had been away from her native place assisting her husband and had not been able to advise her advocate.

Source reference: paras. 2–3, pp. 1–2

The respondent opposed the application, contending that the petitioner had entered appearance through counsel but failed to file a written statement, and that execution had resulted in a sale deed in his favour on 20 November 2018; delivery proceedings were also pending.

Source reference: para. 4, pp. 2–3

The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order in this revision petition.

Source reference: para. 1, p. 1

The High Court recorded that its interim stay, granted subject to deposit of Rs. 1,00,000, had been vacated because the petitioner did not make that deposit.

Source reference: para. 6, p. 3
02

Issues

Whether the petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest the suit notwithstanding the 296-day delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree.

Source reference: para. 7, p. 4

Whether that opportunity should be made conditional on deposit of the amount the petitioner was recorded as having admitted to receiving, with interest.

Source reference: paras. 8–9, p. 5
03

Law Applied

The revision was filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Source reference: prayer, p. 1

It relies on the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity, stating that a party should be afforded an opportunity to participate in the suit; it also treats the delay of 296 days as not enormous in the circumstances.

Source reference: para. 7, p. 4
04

Reasoning

The Court considered the petitioner’s explanation for her absence, the asserted value and residential character of the property, and her stated willingness to contest the suit without delay.

Source reference: para. 7, p. 4

It concluded that, in the interests of natural justice, she should receive a further opportunity to defend the claim despite the 296-day delay.

Source reference: para. 7, p. 4

To condition that opportunity, the Court relied on its record that the petitioner had admitted in her written statement to receiving Rs. 3,00,000 and being ready to repay it with interest at 1% per annum.

Source reference: para. 8, p. 5
05

Holding

The Court disposed of the revision by setting aside the trial court’s order, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 3,00,000 with interest at 1% per annum from the date of suit within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

The Court directed that the petition would stand dismissed automatically if the deposit was not made within that period.

Source reference: paras. 9–10, pp. 4–5

It ordered status quo in the meantime and directed the matter to be listed on 15 October 2026 for reporting compliance.

Source reference: paras. 11–12, p. 6
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Civil Procedure, 19081

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

LAKSHMIvsDURAIYAN

Madras High Court · September 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment