1 Crp.No.359 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 18.07.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI C.R.P.No.359 of 2025 and CMP.No.2179 of 2025 Thamil Selvi ... Petitioner Vs. G. Ramesh Babu ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.3334 of 2022 dated 19.10.2024 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court at Chennai. For Petitioners : Mr.AR.Balaji For Respondent : No appearance O R D E R The plaintiff is on revision challenging the grant of unconditional leave to the respondent/defendant in application filed seeking leave of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 Crp.No.359 of 2025 Court to defend the suit under Order 37 Rule 3 of CPC. Despite the matter being posted for orders on multiple occasions there has been no representation on behalf of the respondent. Today also the respondent remained absent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention directly to the counter affidavit filed in the application for leave to defend the suit, where the revision petitioner as plaintiff has taken a specific contention that the application for leave to defend the suit ought to have been filed within 10 days from the date of receipt of the summons for judgment but has not filed application in time and that there is a delay which according to the petitioner is fatal to the respondent/defendant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the order of the trial Court where there is no reference to the specific contention with regard to the application being belated and not maintainable, without being supported by application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 Crp.No.359 of 2025 materials available on record. 5. On a perusal of the pleadings and documents filed by way of typed set of papers, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the earlier instance in the counter affidavit, the revision petitioner has stated that the application for leave to defend is not maintainable and it is out of time. Unfortunately, without adverting attention to the maintainability of the leave to defend the suit, the trial Court has proceeded to decide the application on merits and thought it fit to grant leave to defend the suit unconditionally. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Praveenkumar Vs M/s.The Honghong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited reported in 2013 (1) LW 747 wherein this Court had a chance to deal with an identical situation and held that application for leave to defend was filed beyond 10 days without an application for condonation of delay would not be maintainable and consequently it would be fatal to the case of the defendant. The provision under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure also mandates filing applications for leave to defend the suit within a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 Crp.No.359 of 2025 period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the Summons for judgment on the defendant. 7. In the present case, it has been brought to the notice of the trial Court that the summon for judgment was served on the respondent / defendant on 23.04.2024, but however the application for leave to defend was signed and filed only on 05.06.2024 and it is clearly beyond the statutory period of 10 days. The respondent cannot take advantage of the intervening holidays since the time for filing the application starts from 23.04.2024 onwards. The trial Court has proceeded to grant leave, without dealing with the objection of the revision petitioner that the leave to defend petition itself is not maintainable as it was filed beyond 10 days the period prescribed for filing the same. 8. In view of the above factual matrix of the case and the ratio laid down by this Court cited supra, I am of the considered view that the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.3334 of 2022 dated 19.10.2024 on the file of XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai has to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside and the suit shall stand decreed in view of the leave to defend application being dismissed and consequently https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 Crp.No.359 of 2025 decree will have to follow and suit shall stand decreed as prayed for. No costs. 9. The civil revision petition is allowed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Index : No 18.07.2025 Internet : Yes dpq P.B.BALAJI, J. dpq https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 Crp.No.359 of 2025 To The XVII Additional City Civil Court Chennai. C.R.P.No.359 of 2025 and CMP.No.2179 of 2025 18.07.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis