Murugesan Vs Janatha

Murugesan vs Janatha

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 27, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1424052

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1424052
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.B. Balaji
Decided On: Feb 27, 2026
Case Number: CRP/1134/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Murugesan

Respondent

Janatha

Excerpt

.....at uthangarai within a stipulated period.2. heard mr.r.inian, learned counsel for the petitioner.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks direction, by way ofdisposal of this revision petition, to the subordinate court at uthangarai, to dispose of the condone delay application pending in i.a.no.4 of 2025 in o.s no.193 of 2017. according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revision petitioner is the third defendant in the suit in o.s.no.193 of 2017 before thesubordinate court, uthangarai and he has been set ex parte in the suit. in orderto set aside the ex parte order, an application has been filed under order ix rule 13, along with an application to condone the delay of 518 days in taking out the application to set aside the preliminary decree passed on 13.06.2023.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the applicationhaving been filed as early as in 2025, it has been pending for over a year and page2 of 4 thereby caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. by taking advantage of the ex parte decree, the plaintiff is attempting to proceed with the final decree proceedings.5. in light of the above, considering the limited relief sought in the revision, i am inclined to dispense with the notice to the respondents.6. accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of and the subordinate court, uthangarai, is directed to dispose of the i.a.no.4 of 2025, in accordance with law on or before 10.04.2026. no costs. index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no gsk to the subordinate court, uthangarai. page3 of 4p.b.balaji, j.gsk page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No.1134 of 2026 Murugesan S/o. Late Gopal, Lakkampatti Village, Hanumantheertham Post, Uthangarai Taluk, ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. Janatha W/o.Chidambaram Vedapatti Village M.Vellalapatti Post Indrani (Died) Murugavel (Died) Gopal (Died)
2. Banu W/o.Late Murugavel Door No.83/D, Lakkampatti Village Katteri Post Krishnagiri District ..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Subordinate Court, Uthangarai to dispose of the I.A No.4 of 2025 in OS No.193 of 2017 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court at Uthangarai within a stipulated period. Page1 of 4 For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Govi Ganesan Mr.R.Inian

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to direct the Subordinate Court, Uthangarai to dispose of the I.A No.4 of 2025 in OS No.193 of 2017 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court at Uthangarai within a stipulated period.

2. Heard Mr.R.Inian, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks direction, by way of

disposal of this Revision Petition, to the Subordinate Court at Uthangarai, to dispose of the condone delay application pending in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.S No.193 of 2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revision petitioner is the third defendant in the suit in O.S.No.193 of 2017 before the

Subordinate Court, Uthangarai and he has been set ex parte in the suit. In order

to set aside the ex parte order, an application has been filed under Order IX Rule 13, along with an application to condone the delay of 518 days in taking out the application to set aside the preliminary decree passed on 13.06.2023.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application

having been filed as early as in 2025, it has been pending for over a year and Page2 of 4 thereby caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. By taking advantage of the ex parte decree, the plaintiff is attempting to proceed with the final decree proceedings.

5. In light of the above, considering the limited relief sought in the Revision, I am inclined to dispense with the notice to the respondents.

6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of and the Subordinate Court, Uthangarai, is directed to dispose of the I.A.No.4 of 2025, in accordance with law on or before 10.04.2026. No costs. Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No GSK To The Subordinate Court, Uthangarai. Page3 of 4

P.B.BALAJI, J.

GSK Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Murugesan vs Janatha Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.B. Balaji