CRP/4635/2023 of MANI Vs M.RAMASAMY on 16 October 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court in I.A.No.1535 of 2022 in ASCFR.No.11554 of 2022, dated 16.09.2023 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 229 days in filing the appeal.

2. The petitioner herein filed a suit seeking declaration declaring that the decree passed in O.S.Nos.38 and 41 of 2004 were null and void and for consequential injunction. The petitioner also prayed for a declaration that certain Sale Deeds mentioned in the plaint prayer were null and void. The respondent herein filed an application to reject the plaint and the same was allowed. Against the order of rejection of the plaint, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court, however, with a delay of 229 days. By impugned order, the condone delay petition has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was staying at Bangalore in his daughter’s house and he was suffering from severe Knee Pain and hence,

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:47 pm )

CRP.No.4635 of 2023

disabled from moving out. Citing the said reason, the petitioner attempted to explain the delay. However, the said application has been was opposed by the respondent by relying on certain proceedings before the Revenue Tahsildar and the Sub Collector, wherein the petitioner said to have appeared and prosecuted the matter at the relevant point of time.

4. The First Appellate Court relying on the documents referred to by the respondent in their counter, dismissed the condone delay petition on the ground that the petitioner having appeared before the Revenue Authorities at the relevant point of time, cannot say that he was disabled and could not present the appeal in time.

5. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that both the parties have not examined any witnesses and no document has been marked. Therefore, it is clear that the First Appellate Court placed reliance on the documents which have not been marked. When the documents referred to in the counter of the respondents, are not marked before the Court below, the petitioner will not get any chance to rebut the documents. Therefore, the First Appellate Court committed procedural irregularity in relying on the documents, not marked before it and rejected the condone delay petition on the basis of those unmarked

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:47 pm )

CRP.No.4635 of 2023

documents. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of First Appellate Court with a direction to consider I.A.No.1535 of 2022 afresh by giving proper opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence, if any. The I.A.No.1535 of 2022 shall be disposed of thereafter, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:47 pm )

CRP.No.4635 of 2023

To The Principal District Court, Tiruppur.

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:47 pm )

CRP.No.4635 of 2023

S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.4635 of 2023 16-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:47 pm )