IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP.No.2897 of 2023 and CMP. No.17940 of 2023 R.Ravi ... Petitioner Vs. K.Suganya ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order in I.A. No.587 of 2019 in O.S. No.37 of 2018 dated 29.03.2023 on the file of the District and Sessions Court No.II, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District. For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Senthil Kumar For Respondent : Mr.T.Sathyamurthy ORDER The first defendant in O.S. No. 37 of 2018 on the file of the District and Sessions Court No. II, (FAC Kancheepuram), is the Revision Petitioner. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2. I have heard Mr.K.C.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.T.Sathyamoorthy, learned counsel for the Respondent. 3. The 1st defendant has filed an Application in I.A No. 587 of 2019 seeking condonation of delay of 300 days in filing the Petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 11.07.2018. The said Application was contested by the Plaintiff and on enquiry, by order dated 29.03.2023, the Trial Court dismissed the Application. Aggrieved by the said order dismissing the condonation of delay application, the present revision has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit is for specific performance and if the petitioner is not afforded an opportunity to contest the suit, he would stand to lose his valuable property. He would also state that written statement has been filed and serious allegations of forgery have also been raised as defence in the said suit. The learned counsel would therefore pray for an opportunity being given to the petitioner to defend the suit on merits. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5. Per contra, Mr.T.Sathyamoorthy, learned counsel for the respondent would state that the Trial Court has rightly found that the petitioner has not made out sufficient grounds for condoning the delay of 300 days and that the petitioner had knowledge of the ex parte decree and never chose to challenge the same at the earliest point of time. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on either sides and I have also gone through the records, including the impugned order of the Trial Court dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 300 days. 7. The Respondent/Plaintiff has filed suit in O.S No. 37 of 2018 seeking to specifically enforce an agreement of sale with the Revision Petitioner herein. The Revision Petitioner remained ex parte and an ex parte decree came to be passed on 30.07.2018. An Execution Petition was filed in EP No. 63 of 2019 and the same is pending. I have also been informed that till date, the Court has not executed any sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and possession also continues to remain only with the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis revision petitioner. 8. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the Revision Petition in order to give an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. However, in order to compensate for the prejudice caused to the respondent/plaintiff on account of delay, I am inclined to impose a cost for allowing the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision shall be allowed on payment of cost Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the respondent/plaintiff through the learned counsel appearing before this Court, on or before 05.10.2025. 9. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above directions. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs. 10. Post the matte on 06.10.2025 'for compliance'. 18.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking : Yes/No Index : Yes / No rkp 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To The District and Sessions Court No.II, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis P.B.BALAJI.J., rkp CRP.No.2897 of 2023 and CMP. No.17940 of 2023 18.09.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis