← Library
Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/911/2025allowed

Thirugnasambandham v. Arulmigu Meiporul Nadha Swamy

2025-03-24Honourable Mr Justice R.Vijayakumar5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.03.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Thirugnasambandham

...Petitioner/Applicant/Petitioner/

2nd Defendant Vs.

Arulmigu Meiporul Nadha Swamy, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kalyana Pasupathisvara Swamy, Devasathanam, Karur.

...Respondent/Respondent/

Respondent/Plaintiff PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order in C.A.No.8 of 2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.150 of 2002 dated 14-02-2025 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Aravakurichi, Karur, by allowing this civil revision petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam * * * * * 1/5

ORDER

The second defendant in O.S.No.150 of 2002, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur, has filed the present revision petition challenging the return order passed in Copy Application No.8 of 2025.

2.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, an ex-parte decree was passed against him on 24.08.2015. His Counsel has filed an application to set aside ex-parte decree with a delay of two days after serving the copies upon on the other side. However, the said application was not prosecuted and a fresh application came to be filed with a delay of 378 days. That application came to be returned. There was a delay of 246 days in representing the said application. That delay was dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, C.R.P.(MD)No.952 of 2025, has been filed before this Court and the same is pending.

3.The second defendant has filed C.A.No.8 of 2025, before the trial Court to get a certified copy of I.A. that was filed to set aside the ex-parte decree with a delay of two days. The trial Court has returned the said copy application on 2/5

the sole ground that it is only a served copy and therefore, the certified copy of the same cannot be issued. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

4.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the document has to be produced before the High Court in support of his case in C.R.P.(MD)No.952 of 2025. Once such a document is marked before the Court, the party is entitled to have a certified copy of the same. 5.Considering the submissions made on the side of the the revision petitioner, the order of return passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur, is directed to comply with C.A.No.8 of 2025, and issue a certified copy of the document that is prayed for in the said application. A copy shall be issued within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.With the above said observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs.

3/5

7.The Registry is directed to return the original impugned order after getting due acknowledgement from the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.

24.03.2025 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No RJR To The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur.

Copy to:- The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

RJR 24.03.2025 5/5