Madras High Court
CRP/3540/2024 of A.SUDALIKANNU Vs A.THILAGAVATHI on 13 October 2026
CRP No. 3540 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 3540 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA011425142024}
A.Sudalikannu
...Petitioner
Vs
1. A.Thilagavathi
2. Minor A.Abhishek Sundar,
(Minor Rep by their Mother and Natural
Guardian, A.Thilagavathi)
3. Minor A.Viswanath Sundar,
(Minor Rep by their Mother and Natural
Guardian, A.Thilagavathi)
...Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 24.04.2024
passed in I.A.no.2/2023 in OS.No.183/2015 by the Learned Additional district Judge, Chengalpattu.
For Petitioner:
M/S.S.Ravikumar
For R1 & R2:
M/S.V.Srimathi
CRP No. 3540 of 2024
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 Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 602 days in filing the petition for restoration of the suit.
2. The petitioner herein filed a suit for specific performance. The same was dismissed for default twice on 25.02.2021 and 26.10.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the instant application seeking to restore the suit along with an application to condone the delay of 602 days in filing the restoration petition. These applications were filed on 01.11.2022. The condonation of delay petition was dismissed by the Trial Court and aggrieved by the same, 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's maternal uncle was affected with a serious illness and the petitioner stayed with him to look after him. Hence, he could not appear before the Court on the date of hearing. It is further submitted that he could not file the restoration application in time because the case bundle had mixed up with other bundles in the Advocate's office. Only after tracing the case bundle, the restoration application was filed with the delay.
CRP No. 3540 of 2024
4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the suit has been dismissed for default for the second time, and the petitioner has not given any valid reason for the inordinate delay of 602 days. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the revision.
5. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance and he also paid Court fee of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Being a plaintiff who has paid substantial Court fee seeking the relief of specific performance, the petitioner is not going to gain anything by allowing the suit to go for default. However, taking into consideration the previous conduct of the petitioner, the reasons assigned in the affidavit regarding the illness of his maternal uncle and that the bundles of the petitioner got mixed up in the advocate's office, this Court is inclined to take a liberal view of the matter and give one more opportunity to the petitioner to conduct the case
6. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner as a condition for allowing the condone delay application.
7. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the credit of O.S. No. 183 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Court, Chengalpattu within a period of 4 weeks from
CRP No. 3540 of 2024
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing compliance, this Civil Revision Petition shall stand automatically dismissed. If the petitioner complies with the order, the Trial Court is directed to take up the Order IX Rule 13 application and pass appropriate orders on its own merits. The respondents are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner by making a formal application before the Trial Court.
8. With the above said directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rya To:- The Additional District Court, Chengalpattu
CRP No. 3540 of 2024
S.SOUNTHAR, J. rya CRP No. 3540 of 2024 13-10-2026