A.No. 1998 of 2023 in C.S.No. 70 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Application No. 1998 of 2025 in C.S.No. 70 of 2024 1.A.Raliya Banu 2.A.Syed Ibrahim ....Applicants/defendants 1&2 Versus 1.Veera Kathiravan ...1st respondent/plaintiff 2.Google LLC Having branch office at Unit No.26, The Executive Centre Level 8, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. [The 3rd defendant struck off from the array of parties as per the order of this Court dated 28.04.2025]. ...2nd Respondent/3rd defendant Prayer: Application is filed to set aside the ex-parte order dated 25.11.2024 against the defendants 1 and 2 in C.S.No. 70 of 2024. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No. 1998 of 2023 in C.S.No. 70 of 2024 For Applicant : M/s.T.Anto Chrisbeen Jenitha --- ORDER This application has been filed by the applicants/defendants 1&2 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order in C.S.No.70 of 2024, dated 25.11.2024 passed against the defendants 1 & 2. 2. The applicants are the defendants 1&2 and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 3rd defendant in the main suit. 3. According to the applicants/defendants 1&2, the first respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in C.S.No.70 of 2024 for compensation and permanent injunction against the defendants. The applicants/defendants 1&2 had already received summon. In the meanwhile, Mr.D.Alexis Sudhakar, learned Counsel on record for the applicants/defendants 1&2 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody due to political animosity. Therefore, the learned Counsel was unable to conduct the case. Due to non appearance of the applicants/defendants 1&2, they were set ex-parte in the suit proceedings on 25.11.2024. The applicants/defendants 1&2 filed written https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No. 1998 of 2023 in C.S.No. 70 of 2024 statement along with condone delay application in filing the written statement and the same is not yet numbered. Hence, this application is filed seeking to set aside the ex-parte order passed on 25.11.2024 against the applicants/defendants 1&2. 4. According to the 1st respondent/plaintiff, after receipt of summons, the applicants/defendants wantonly failed to appear before the Court. Even though the previous Counsel for the defendants 1&2 is under the judicial custody. However, the applicants/defendants 1&2 did not take any steps to engage another Counsel to represent their case. Now, the applicants/defendants 1&2 filed this application only at the conclusion stage of the suit proceedings. The 2nd respondent/3rd defendant has already been struck off from the array of the parties. However, the matter has been referred to the learned Additional Master-IV for recording evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses. PW1 was examined in-chief in full and thereafter, the case was posted before the regular court on 21.02.2025. Already, sufficient opportunities were granted to the applicants/defendants 1&2, but, they failed to avail those opportunities. Therefore, this application has been filed only to drag on the suit proceedings and the application is liable to be dismissed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No. 1998 of 2023 in C.S.No. 70 of 2024 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that after receipt of summons, the applicants/defendants 1&2 did not appear before the Court and thereafter, this Court passed an ex-parte order on 25.11.2024 against the applicants/defendants 1&2. Already, PW1 was examined, Proof Affidavit filed and Ex.P1 to P17 were marked. At this stage, this application has been filed by the applicants/defendants 1&2. According to the applicants/defendants 1&2, they were unable to engage new counsel to conduct their case due to their previous Counsel was incarceration in a criminal case. The applicants/defendants 1&2 filed the present application to set aside the ex-parate order passed against the defendants 1&2 on 25.11.2024. It is an admitted fact that the case was posted for recording evidence, PW1 also examined in-chief in full and marked the documents. At that time, the applicants/defendants failed to appear before the Court for cross-examination of PW1. Therefore, the applicants/defendants 1&2 was set ex-parte. The reason stated by the applicants/defendants 1&2 in the application is that due to previous counsel was incarceration, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No. 1998 of 2023 in C.S.No. 70 of 2024 applicants/defendants 1&2 were unable to appear before the Court. Therefore, the above said reason is acceptable. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to give fair chance to the applicants/defendants, it is appropriate to allow this petition. In view of the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, this application is allowed. No costs. 10-09-2025 MSM Note: Registry is directed to number the condone delay application in filing written statement and if it is otherwise in order. P. DHANABAL, J., https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No. 1998 of 2023 in C.S.No. 70 of 2024 MSM Application No. 1998 of 2025 in C.S.No. 70 of 2024 10.09.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis