Madras High Court
CRP/5458/2025 of KARTHIKEYAN Vs ARANGANATHAN on 9 October 2026
CRP No. 5458 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 5458 of 2025
and CMP No.27459 of 2025
CNR: {HCMA012659132025}
1. Karthikeyan
S/o. Manivannan,
No.3A, Wigilmier Street,
Sorakkalpet, Cuddalore Taluk.
2. Senthilvelan
S/o.Manivannan, No.3A, Wigilier St,
Sorakkalpet, Cuddalore Taluk.
..Petitioners
Vs
1. Aranganathan
S/o. Rayar Padayachi,
No.1000, Kaliamman Koil street,
Sanrorpalayam,
Cuddalore O.T,
Cuddalore Taluk.
2. Raghunath
S/o.Aranganathan,
No.1000, Kaliamman Koil street,
Sanrorpalayam,
Cuddalore O.T,
Cuddalore Taluk.
3. Jagadeesh
S/o.Aranganathan,
No.1000, Kaliamman Koil street,
Sanrorpalayam,
Cuddalore O.T,
Cuddalore Taluk.
4. Minor Gowthami
Represented by next friend
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:59 pm )
CRP No. 5458 of 2025
Guardian father Aranganathan
No.1000, Kaliamman Koil street,
Sanrorpalayam,
Cuddalore O.T,
Cuddalore Taluk.
5. Minor Amarnath
Rep.by next Friend Guardian father
Aranganathan.
No.1000, Kaliamman Koil street,
Sanrorpalayam,
Cuddalore O.T,
Cuddalore Taluk.
..Respondents
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 19.07.2025, in IA.No.233 of 2018 in OS.No.18 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore.
For Petitioners:
Ms.Dhaaranee. K
for Mrs.Srimathi V.
For Respondent(s):
Mr.D.BASKAR
for R1 TO R3
R4 and R5 minor represented by R1
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:59 pm )
CRP No. 5458 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 petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 3537 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree that was passed on 18.12.2008.
2. The respondents herein filed a suit seeking partition. In that suit, a preliminary decree for partition was passed ex parte against the petitioners on 18.12.2008. The petitioners filed an application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree along with an application to condone the delay of 3537 days on 24.09.2018. The said condone delay application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on behalf of the petitioners, the suit was contested by the petitioner’s father namely the first defendant in the suit. All along the petitioners were under the impression that the first defendant would take care of the interest of the petitioners. However, later they acquired knowledge about the ex parte decree and hence they were constrained to file application to set aside exparte decree with delay of 3537 days. It is also stated the second petitioner was minor at the time filing of filing of the suit and he was represented by the father. Due to the default committed by the petitioner’s father, the suit was decreed ex parte.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:59 pm )
CRP No. 5458 of 2025
4. It is seen from the typed set of papers, the petitioners were arrayed as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The suit was filed in the year 2001 and numbered as O.S.No.276 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore and later the same was transferred to Additional District Judge, Fast Track II, Cuddalore and renumbered as O.S.No.18 of 2004. It is also seen from the impugned order, the defendants 2 and 3 adopted the written statement filed by the defendants 4 to 6. When the written statement of defendants 4 to 6 were adopted on 22.07.2003, the third defendant had become major. After adopting the pleadings of defendants 4 to 6, the petitioners failed to participate in the trial and hence an ex parte decree came to be passed against them.
5. The petitioners have no valid reason to explain the inordinate delay of 3537 days i.e. from 2008 to 2018. It is noted by the trial Court the first petitioner who was examined as P.W.1 categorically admitted the petitioners were living together with their father and they were duly represented by Counsel in the suit proceedings. Therefore, it is clear there is no strained relationship between the petitioners and their father. In such circumstances, the reasons assigned by the petitioners that the father of the petitioners looked after the case and hence they were not aware of the ex parte decree, cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 3537 days. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by trial Court, dismissing condone delay petition.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:59 pm )
CRP No. 5458 of 2025
6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No BKN To:
1. I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:59 pm )
CRP No. 5458 of 2025
S.SOUNTHAR, J. BKN CRP No. 5458 of 2025 09-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:59 pm )