Madras High Court
CRP/5656/2026 of P.Sinduja Vs B.Saravanankumar on 9 October 2026
CRP.No.5656 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.5656 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011994382026}
and
CMP.No.24437 of 2026
P.Sinduja
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
B.Saravanakumar
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 28.07.2026 passed in
I.A.No.4 of 2026 in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in HMCMA.No.2 of 2026 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore which now transferred to Additional District Judge (FTC), Vellore and to restore I.A.No.4 of 2026 for fresh disposal on merits after giving both parties an opportunity of hearing.
For Petitioner
: M/s.P.Sinduja (Party-in-Person)
For Respondent
: Mr.S.Suresh
CRP.No.5656 of 2026
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 Court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.4 of 2026 seeking to set aside the exparte final order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025, dated 24.02.2026.
2. The respondent/husband filed a petition seeking divorce in H.M.O.P.No.54 of 2013 and the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/husband filed an appeal with a delay of 671 days. The said application was allowed by the Court below, owing to the failure of the petitioner to file counter. Thereafter, the instant application has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the exparte final order allowing I.A.No.3 of 2025. The said application has been dismissed by the Trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The petitioner appearing in person would submit that the petitioner was unable to file counter to the condone delay petition as her mother suffered a stroke at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that the respondent has not given any valid reason to condone the delay. The First Appellate Court
CRP.No.5656 of 2026
without recording the satisfaction with regard to the reason for delay erroneously allowed the application.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner to file counter in the condone delay petition. Inspite of several adjournments, the petitioner failed to file counter and hence, the Court below was inclined to allow the condone delay petition.
5. The present civil revision petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the petitioner was prevented from filing counter in the condone delay petition due to ill-health of petitioner’s mother. A perusal of the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.3 of 2025 would indicate after recording the fact that the petitioner/respondent therein failed to file counter, the Appellate Court simply allowed the condone delay petition, without considering the reason assigned by the respondent herein to condone the delay of 671 days. Merely because, the petitioner/respondent therein failed to file counter, the Appellate Court ought not to have allowed the application filed by the respondent herein without considering the sufficiency of the reason given in the condone delay petition. Therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Court in I.A.No.3 of 2025 on the face of it is unsustainable.
CRP.No.5656 of 2026
6. Though the civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2026 seeking to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025, if the prayer in I.A.No.4 of 2026 is allowed, automatically the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 will get set aside and the condone delay petition has to be considered as fresh. Now, the petitioner has filed this I.A.No.4 of 2026 on the ground that she could not file counter to the I.A.No.3 of 2025 due to ill-health of her mother. Taking into consideration the reason assigned for failure to file counter in I.A.No.3 of 2025 and also the fact the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 is also unsustainable for the reason mentioned above, this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed in both the IAs.
7. In the light of the said discussion, this Court feels it is appropriate case to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and set aside the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 also as the same is unsustainable on the face of it. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2026 in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in HMCMA.No.2 of 2026, dated 28.07.2026, is set aside.
8. Since this Court already recorded a finding, the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 is unsustainable, this Court is inclined to direct the Appellate Court to consider the I.A.No.3 of 2025 afresh. The petitioner is directed to file
CRP.No.5656 of 2026
counter in I.A.No.3 of 2025 on or before 30.10.2026. The Court below shall consider I.A.No.3 of 2025 on merits and pass final orders in accordance with law on or before 13.11.2026. If the I.A.No.3 of 2025 is allowed, the Court below can proceed with the appeal, which is already taken on file (C.M.A.No.2 of 2026). On the other hand, if the I.A.No.3 of 2025 is dismissed, the appeal already taken on file (C.M.A.No.2 of 2026) shall be rejected as a consequence to the dismissal of I.A.No.3 of 2025.
9. With this clarification, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm Note: Issue order copy on 13.10.2026.
CRP.No.5656 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.5656 of 2026 and CMP.No.24437 of 2026 09-10-2026