CMP/23402/2026 of R. NAGALINGAM Vs JAYALAKSHMI on 16 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

These Applications have been filed for condoning a delay of 2508 days in filing the Application to set aside the order of dismissal dated 12.01.2019 in CRP (NPD) No.749 of 2014 and to consequently, set aside the order of dismissal of the revision petition.

2. I have heard Mr.V.C.Janarthanan, for Mr.M.Venkadeshkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.N.Shiju, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr.V.C.Janarthanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the suit has been filed in the year 2009, seeking to set aside the sale deed of the year 1991 and unfortunately, an exparte decree came to be passed,

without the knowledge of the petitioner in the year 2010. Mr.Janarthanan, learned counsel would contend that on coming to know of the exparte decree on 31.07.2012, the petitioners immediately filed an application to condone the delay of 892 days in setting aside the exparte decree. However, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court, as against which, the present CRP. (NPD) No.749 of 2014 has been filed. The said revision petition was pending and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was dismissed for non prosecution on 20.03.2014. However, thereafter, on 11.06.2014, the revision was restored to file. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the revision was not listed thereafter until 2019 and the learned counsel for the petitioner did not inform the petitioner about the status of the matter including the fact that the revision had actually was posted for dismissal, on 06.09.2019.

4. The learned counsel would further state that only after making enquiries in the Registry, the petitioner came to know that the revision had already been dismissed on 12.09.2019. The learned counsel therefore states that for the fault of the Counsel, the petitioner who is a layman and also being

totally unaware of legal procedure and technicalities, should not suffer. He further reiterates the fact that the lapse on the part of the Counsel should not prejudice the petitioner, especially when the petitioner has a good case on merits. In this regard, Mr.Janarthanan, learned counsel points out to the fact that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. He also relied on the order passed by this Court in Dineshchand Vs. Ellamma, in CRP Nos.617 and 618 of 2025 dated 14.11.2025, where I had allowed restoration of suits, that had been dismissed for non prosecution on the ground that an opportunity should be given to the party who suffered an adverse decree. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jang Singh Vs. Brij Lal and others, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1631 and Mariyamma Roy Vs. Indian Bank, reported in, (2009) 16 SCC 189, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no act of Court should harm a litigant and a dismissal without notice, is violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel would therefore prays for a delay 2508 days being condoned and the revision being disposed of on merits.

5. Per contra, Mr.P.N.Shiju, learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently opposed the condonation of inordinate delay of 2508 days. Firstly,

the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.P.N.Shiju, would submit that the petitioner cannot attempt to throw the blame on the Counsel and it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to follow up his matter. Taking me through the affidavit in support of the condone delay application, presently filed Mr.P.N.Shiju, would state that the conduct of the petitioner, right from day one, clearly establishes the fact that he has been indifferent and callous and therefore, he cannot be given an audience, that too, when the delay is inordinate and totally unexplained.

6. With regard to the argument of Mr.V.C.Janarthanan that between 2014 and 2019, the revision was not listed for hearing before this Court, Mr.P.N.Shiju, would point out to the fact that on 10.07.2015, the revision was in fact, listed for hearing before the Court and fresh notice, besides private notice which was also ordered to be taken by the petitioner. Admittedly, the said order has not been complied with on the side of the petitioner.

7. Mr.Shiju, learned counsel for the respondent would state that the petitioner has sworn to a false affidavit that the matter was never listed between

2014 and 2019, which is contrary to the admitted position that the Civil Revision Petition was listed for hearing on 10.07.2015 and only for the default on the part of the petitioner that the revision claims to be dismissed for non prosecution. He would further state that even on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had allowed the revision petition to be dismissed for non prosecution and for the repeated inaction on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot seek indulgence of this Court. In any event, learned counsel states that the delay remains wholly unexplained, expecting for throwing the blame on the erstwhile Counsel. In this regard, he would rely on my decision in Chitravel and another Vs. Jothimani, in CRP. (MD) No.798 of 2025, dated 20.12.2023, where I had held that the litigant cannot blame the Counsel, that too, behind the back of the Counsel and attempt to get huge and inordinate delay condoned. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the Petitions.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner suffered an exparte decree in O.S. No.5857 of 2009, and an application seeking condonation of delay 892 days was taken out to set aside the exparte decree. On contest, the Trial Court dismissed the said application, finding that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause. Challenging the said order, the present revision was filed. Even immediately after filing of the revision petition, the Civil Revision Petition came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 20.03.2014 itself. However, the revision was restored to file on 11.06.2014. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel that thereafter the revision was never listed until 2019 by which time, the petitioner was in dark because the then Counsel had not informed the petitioner about the progress of the revision. This averment is found to be factually incorrect, since as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the revision was listed on 10.07.2015 and fresh notice was ordered through Court as well as privately, to the respondent. The said order also was not complied with on the side of the petitioner. Casually, the petitioner states that the revision was not listed between 2014 and 2019 and though the revision came to be dismissed on 12.09.2019, for non prosecution, the petitioner claims that he came to know about the same on

enquiry from the Registry in 2026. The present Application has been presented on 24.08.2026. A litigant is bound to be vigilant and follow up his/her matter. In fact, the lawyer representing the litigant is only a representative/agent of the litigant before the Court and the party to the lis is the petitioner or the respondent, as the case may be. Therefore, total silence on the part of the petitioner from 2019 to 2026 is clearly unexplained. The delay is also huge and inordinate and it is not believable that a diligent litigant would have kept quite all these years, without even approaching his lawyer to find out the status of the case. Moreso, in the present case, the petitioner is fully aware that he has also suffered an exparte decree in the suit and the attempt to set aside the exparte decree has also been dismissed. In such circumstances, the petitioner should have been more cautious and should have followed up with his Counsel, to ensure that the revision is duly prosecuted.

10. In paragraph No.10, the petitioner very casually contends that he came to know about the order of dismissal dated 12.09.2019, recently, upon personal enquiry at the Registry and thereafter, he has filed the Application on 17.08.2026 and revision has been presented on 24.08.2026. As already stated

herein above, the affidavit itself exposes the callous and lackadaisical manner in which the petitioner has been prosecuting the litigation despite being fully aware of an adverse decree having been passed against him in the suit as early as in 2010. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others, reported in 2025 INSC 1104, has also discussed the entire plethora of case law under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and held that the petitioner is bound to show sufficient cause for the delay and without explaining the delay to the satisfaction of the Court, the petitioner cannot fall back on the merits of the main claim and contend that since the petitioner has a very good case on merits, he should be given an opportunity and therefore, the delay should be condoned.

11. In view of the above, I do not see any merit in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions and accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP Pre-delivery Order in CMP. Nos.23402 & 23404 of 2026 in CRP (NPD) No.749 of 2014 16-10-2026