M/S.Supersight Ceequence Technologies Ltd v. M/S.Newlink Overseas Finance Ltd And 3 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA M/s.Supersight Ceequence Technologies Ltd.

Represented by its Director G.T.Mahesh Kumar Having Office at No.66/67, Gowdia Mutt Road Royapettah, Chennai-600014.

...Applicant Vs.

1.M/s. Newlink Overseas Finance Ltd.

New No.25, (Old No.13) Whites Road, Chennai-600 014 Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.A.Namasivayam 2.Utsav Seth 3.Rajesh Somasundaram 4.Ravi Patwari ... Respondents Prayer : This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying to condone the delay of 2105 days in filing petition to set aside

the exparte decree dated 24.11.2016 passed by this Court in C.S. No. 81 of 2009 and restore the suit.

For applicant : Mr.S.Arivazhagan For Respondents : Mr.R.Mukundan (DD1 & 2) Mr.M.Aravind Subramanian (SC) Mr.M.J.A.S.Sathish Kumar (DD3 & 4)

O R D E R

This application has been filed by the applicant /1st defendant to condone the delay of 2105 days in filing petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 24.11.2016 passed by this Court in C.S. No. 81 of 2009 and restore the suit to file.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the summons had not been served upon the defendants 1 and 2. However, the record would show that service against the defendants 1 and 2 had been completed as early as on 14.06.2010 and they had been set exparte on 22.02.2011.

3. The suit for recovery of money against the defendants had been filed by the 1st respondent /plaintiff.

4. The Defendants 3 and 4 had entered appearance and contested the suit and thereafter, at the conclusion of the trial and hearing arguments, the suit had been decreed on 24.11.2016.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the defendants were not in the Country, at the relevant point of time and the defendants 3 and 4 were colluded with the plaintiff and obtained a decree behind their back.

6. As against the contesting defendants/ defendants 3 and 4, the suit had been dismissed and as against the defendants 1 and 2, the suit had been decreed only. Hence, the judgement is passed on merits, even though the defendants 1 and 2 remained set exparte.

7. Having effected the service of summons ultimately through the mode of substituted service, the service of summons as against the defendants 1 and 2 had been recorded as completed.

8. On perusal of the judgment, the defendants 3 and 4 did not collude with the plaintiff, and they have also seriously contested the suit and at the conclusion of the trial, the suit had been dismissed against the defendants 3 and 4 and the suit had been decreed against the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff, who remained exparte, could have effectively exhausted their remedy by way of preferring an appeal instead of filing this application with an inordinate delay to set aside the exparte decree dated 24.11.2016 passed by this Court in C.S. No. 81 of 2009 and restore the suit to file.

9. In fact, the decree passed cannot be construed just an exparte decree as the defendants 3 and 4 had contested the suit and the decree had been passed on merits.

10. Hence, the application stands dismissed. No costs. 15.09.2025 Maya

Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J.

Maya Dated : 15.09.2025