Madras High Court
CRP/1161/2025 of M.MANICKAM Vs RATHINAM on 14 October 2026
CRP.No.1161 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.1161 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA010524322025}
and
CMP.No.6924 of 2025
1. M.Manickam
2. M.Muthu
3. M.Rajendran
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Rathinam
2. M.Mani
3. R.Manishankar
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Final order dated 17.12.2024 made in I.A.No.2
of 2024 in O.S.No.484 of 2019, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem.
For Petitioners
: Mr.T.Vishal
for M/s.V.Rajesh
For R1
: Mr.K.Selvaraj
For R2 and R3
: No Appearance
( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP.No.1161 of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Salem in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.484 of 2019, dated 17.12.2024, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 1244 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.
2. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.484 of 2019 for partition against the petitioners and other respondents. The said suit was decreed exparte on 01.06.2020. The petitioners filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with the petition to condone the delay of 1244 days in filing the said application on 28.11.2023. The condone delay petition was dismissed by the Trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that at the relevant point of time the petitioners’ father was affected with covid and ultimately, he died on 06.10.2021. Since the petitioners pre-occupied with the treatment of their father, they could not contact their counsel and instruct him regarding contesting the suit. It is further stated that the petitioners acquired
( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP.No.1161 of 2025
knowledge about the exparte decree only after receipt notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the final decree proceedings. Without appreciating the said fact, the Trial Court refused to condone the delay.
4. It is seen from the typed-set of papers, the petitioners were set exparte for their failure to file written statement as early as on 29.11.2019, well before the outbreak of covid pandemic. The petitioners have not given any explanation for their failure to set aside the exparte order from 29.11.2019 to March-2020 (upto the outbreak of covid pandemic). It is also seen that the petitioners’ father died on 06.10.2021. The covid pandemic was over by February-2022. However, the instant application has been filed only on 28.11.2023.
5. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have not received the suit summons. The only reason given by them is that they were pre-occupied with the treatment of their father affected by covid. After the death of their father, the petitioners could have taken steps to contact their counsel and find out the status of the case. However, they kept quiet for nearly two years and filed the instant application only on 28.11.2023 with a pleading that they acquired knowledge about the exparte decree only after receipt of notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the final decree proceedings.
( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP.No.1161 of 2025
6. The petitioners have not given any valid reason for the inaction, after death of their father (i.e., on 06.10.2021 to the date of filing of the present application on 28.11.2023). It is also seen from the impugned order, in the final decree proceedings also, the petitioners remained exparte. Therefore, even after receipt of notice in the final decree proceedings, the petitioners have not taken any steps to set aside the exparte decree and they remained exparte in the final decree proceedings also. When the Advocate Commissioner visited the property, he was resisted by the petitioners. Only thereafter, the present application has been filed. The reason assigned by the petitioners is not at all accepted to condone the inordinate delay of 1244 days. The Trial Court rightly dismissed the condone delay application. I do not find anything to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm
( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP.No.1161 of 2025
To The Principal Subordinate Court, Salem.
( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRP.No.1161 of 2025
S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.1161 of 2025 and CMP.No.6924 of 2025 14-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )