CRP/4614/2025 of D.Selvan Vs Ruckmani on 14 October 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore in I.A.No.329 of 2017 in ASCFR.No.36305 of 2017 dated 27.11.2019, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 924 days in preferring the appeal.

2. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit seeking declaration that she was absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction. She also sought for a declaration that the decree passed in O.S.No.238 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam was null and void. The said suit was decreed exparte on 08.10.2014. The petitioner herein, who was arrayed as 1st defendant in the suit, filed an appeal challenging the exparte decree with a delay of 924 days. The First Appellate Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:16 pm )

CRP.No.4614 of 2025

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the suit was originally filed before the District Munsif Court, Palladam, the same was transferred to I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore and the petitioner has not received any notice from the Transferee Court. Therefore, he had no knowledge about the exparte decree. In view of the same, there was a delay in filing the appeal challenging the exparte decree.

4. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason, the reason urged before this Court was not found in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the condone delay petition before the First Appellate Court. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the condone delay petition would indicate that the petitioner was set exparte on 01.07.2014 for his failure to cross examine PW.1 and subsequently, an exparte decree was passed. It was further stated in the affidavit that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner shifted his residence from Kinathukadavu to Chengalpattu due to family circumstances and only after his return to Kinathukadavu, he acquired knowledge about the exparte decree and filed appeal challenging the exparte decree with a delay.

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:16 pm )

CRP.No.4614 of 2025

5. When the point urged by the petitioner has not been mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reasoning given by the petitioner that he shifted his residence and hence, he could not follow the case cannot be accepted, because it is not the case of the petitioner that he has not received any summons in the suit. The petitioner had good knowledge about the pendency of the suit. In such circumstances, even after shifting of the residence, he could have easily contacted his counsel and instructed him to contest the case in accordance with law. The reason assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition is not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 924 days. The First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the same and dismissed the condone delay petition. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court.

6. Accordingly, the 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: 27/10/2026 06:17:16 pm )

CRP.No.4614 of 2025

To

1. The Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore.

2. The Thasildhar, Office at Taluk Office Campus, Sulur.

3. The District Collector, Coimbatore.

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:16 pm )

CRP.No.4614 of 2025

S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.4614 of 2025 and CMP.No.23335 of 2025 14-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:16 pm )