High Court · 2025

C.R.P.No.2919 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03-09-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMANC.R.P.No.2919 of 2025and C.M.P.No.16452 of 2025SelvarajS/o.Thandavan @ Thandan, Merkku Street, Akkichettipalayam Village, Palaniyapuri Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District.Petitioner(s)Vs1.Indira SelvamW/o.Perumal,Thaneerpanthalakadu, Moolapalli Post, Namagiripettai, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.2.Thandavan @ ThandanS/o.Late Periyannagonder,Merkku Street, Akkichetipalayam Village, Palaniyapuri Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District.3.AjithkumarS/o.Selvaraj, Merkku Street, Akkichetipalayam Village, Palaniyapuri Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District.4.AravinthS/o.Selvaraj, Merkku Street, Akkichetipalayam Village, Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2919 of 2025Palaniyapuri Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District.5.HamshaW/o.Selvaraj,Merkku Street, Akkichetipalayam Village, Palaniyapuri Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District.6.Selvi @ KalaiselviW/o.Srinivasan,Kandasamy Puthur, Arasnatham Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District.7.PannerselvamS/o.Periyasammy,Pudu Udayampatti, Appamasamuthiram, Attur Taluk, Salem District.8.SubramaniyamS/o.Ponnusamy,Akkichettipalayam Village and Palaniyapuri Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District.9.ChithamparamS/o.Mannathi @ Erusappa Udayar, Akkichettipalayam Village and Palaniyapuri Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District.10.PavaayeeW/o.Kumaravel,Kattukottai Paithur Village and post, Taluk, Salem District.11.The District Collector, Salem.12.The TahsildarAttur Post and Taluk, Salem District.13.The Village Administrative Officer,Akkichettiypalayam Village, Palaniyapuri Post, Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2919 of 2025Attur Taluk, Salem District.14.The Sub Registrar,Attur Post and Taluk, Salem District.Respondent(s)Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 07.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.206 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Attur, Salem District.For Petitioner(s) :Mr.SP.ChockalingamFor R1 :For RR 11 to 14:Mr.Dalit Tiger C.PonnusamyMrs.R.Anitha, Special Government PleaderORDERChallenging the order dated 07.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.206 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Attur, Salem District, the revision petitioner/second defendant has preferred the present civil revision petition.2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2919 of 2025per their rankings in the trial Court.3.The plaintiff/Indira Selvam has filed the suit in O.S.No.206 of 2021 seeking the relief of declaration and for permanent injunction as against the defendants. The suit had been posted on 09.11.2022 for filing written statement by the defendants. For non-appearance of the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed for default on 12.03.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff/Indira Selvam filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2024 to restore the suit in O.S.No.206 of 2021.4.After hearing both sides, the trial Court allowed the application on condition that Indira Selvam/plaintiff should pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the respondents 2 to 6 on or before 05.11.2024, failing which, the application would be dismissed automatically and adjourned the case on 06.11.2024. Thereafter, Indira Selvam/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.6 of 2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.206 of 2021 under Sections 148 and 151 CPC to enlarge the time for payment of cost to the respondents 2 to 6 stating that due to his lack of knowledge, he had understood that order will be passed on 06.11.2024 and cost will be paid later to the respondents 2 to 6.Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2919 of 20255.Upon hearing either side, the trial Court vide order dated 07.02.2025 allowed the application in I.A.No.6 of 2024 on payment of Rs.2,000/- to the respondents on or before 21.02.2025 and thereafter, time would be extended in I.A.No.4 of 2024, failing which, the application would be dismissed.6.Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner/second defendant has preferred the present civil revision petition.7.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/second defendant would submit that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Indira Selvam/plaintiff was a rank defaulter and does not worth the empathy or consideration of the Court. Further, the trial Court has failed to understand that the petition filed by Indira Selvam/plaintiff under Sections 148 and 151 CPC seeking enlargement of time for payment of cost is unsustainable in law. The reasons assigned in the application are not at all acceptable and the same is untenable. To strengthen his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Shyamala vs. Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2919 of 2025Gundlur Masthan reported in AIR 2023 SC 1224 to show that the Court has to see all the attendant circumstances including if the vendee has conducted himself in a reasonable manner under the contract of sale. Another judgment of this Court in G.Kesavan vs. B.C.Raman reported in (2014) 1 MLJ 862 to show that there must be a satisfactory reasons or convincing reason in the affidavit to entertain the application. Yet another judgment of this Court in Kuthalingam vs. T.S.Rama Narayana and Others reported in (2010) 4 MLJ 495 to show that the reasons adduced in the affidavit have not been established.8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff/Indira Selvam would submit that as directed by the trial Court, cost has been paid on 20.02.2025, but, the revision petitioner/second defendant has refused to receive the same and thereafter, the first respondent/plaintiff/Indira Selvam approached the trial Court to pay the amount through the bank. In order to meet the ends of justice, the trial Court has allowed the application and there is no reason to interfere with the same.9.It is seen from the records that the suit has been filed for Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2919 of 2025declaration and permanent injunction and due to non-appearance the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed for default on 12.03.2024, challenging which, Indira Selvam/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2024 under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC to restore the suit in O.S.No.206 of 2021 and the same was allowed on 18.10.2024 on condition that Indira Selvam/plaintiff should pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the respondents 2 to 6 on or before 05.11.2024, failing which, the application would be dismissed automatically and adjourned the case on 06.11.2024. Thereafter, Indira Selvam/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.6 of 2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.206 of 2021 under Sections 148 and 151 CPC to enlarge the time for payment of cost to the respondents 2 to 6 stating that due to his lack of knowledge, he had understood that order will be passed on 06.11.2024 and cost will be paid later to the respondents 2 to 6. Considering the reasons stated by Indira Selvam/plaintiff, the trial Court in order to meet the ends of justice by exercising its inherent power, allowed the application.10.This Court is of the opinion that in order to decide the issue pending between the parties and in the interest of justice, an opportunity can be provided to Indira Selvam/plaintiff and I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Court below.Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2919 of 2025With the above observations, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.Ps. are closed. 03-09-2025nsdIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:Yes; Neutral Citation:Yes/NoToThe Subordinate Judge,Attur, Salem District.Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2919 of 2025M.JOTHIRAMAN J.nsdC.R.P.No.2919 of 202503.09.2025Page 9 of 9