In a notable order, the Madras High Court has set aside an ex-parte decree passed against Joe Micheal Praveen in a defamation case filed by journalist and political figure Apsara Reddy, over alleged defamatory videos on YouTube. The Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq delivered its decision on October 7, 2025, restoring the original suit for fresh hearing.
Background
The case dates back to a civil suit where Apsara Reddy had sought damages from Praveen for allegedly publishing and circulating defamatory content on YouTube and other social media platforms. She claimed that the videos had tarnished her reputation and sought compensation.
After receiving notice, Praveen engaged an advocate who filed a vakalatnama (authorization to appear in court). However, when neither Praveen nor his counsel appeared for subsequent hearings, the trial court proceeded ex-parte on October 9, 2023, and finally decreed the case on January 4, 2024.
Praveen later filed an application to set aside the decree, arguing that his absence was not deliberate but due to his lawyer's failure to appear. The trial court, however, dismissed his plea in March 2024, citing contradictions in his affidavit-particularly a false claim that he never received the summons.
Court's Observations
When the appeal came up before the High Court, Justice Subramaniam noted that while the trial court had rightly taken note of the false statement, the overarching principle of justice required offering one fair chance to defend.
"The mistake or error committed by a lawyer need not affect the interests of the litigants," the Bench remarked, emphasizing that procedural lapses should not deprive a party of the opportunity to contest a matter on merit.
At the same time, the court was cautious about the misuse of leniency.
"Only in exceptional cases where the conduct of the parties is totally indifferent, ex-parte decrees are normally passed," the judges observed, balancing fairness with judicial discipline.
The Bench also acknowledged that Praveen's affidavit contained a factual error regarding service of summons. However, it accepted his counsel’s explanation that the statement had been made inadvertently based on legal advice.
Decision
After weighing the facts, the Division Bench decided to give the appellant another chance. The court set aside the trial court’s order dated March 27, 2024, and restored Civil Suit No. 127 of 2022 for fresh consideration.
"The intention of the Court is not to penalize a party for the lapses of counsel," Justice Subramaniam stated in the order, requesting the trial court to expedite the hearing but without fixing a rigid timeline.
The judges also recorded an assurance from Praveen's counsel that the appellant would cooperate fully and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
With this, the Original Side Appeal (OSA No. 323 of 2025) was allowed, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Case Title: Joe Micheal Praveen v. Apsara Reddy and Another
Case Number: OSA No. 323 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 07 October 2025