CRP/6184/2026 of Viruthambal (Died) 1.Indira Vs Jothilakshmi on 9 October 2026

ORDER

The appellants in Unnumbered A.S. SR. No. 533 of 2022 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Panruti, are the revision petitioners, aggrieved by the dismissal of their application in IA No. 1 of 2022, seeking condonation of a delay of 2001 days in preferring the first appeal.

2. I have heard Mr.P.G.Thiyagu, counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Kartik, counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff. Admitted base facts are as follows:

3. The respondent as plaintiff filed O.S. No. 241 of 2010 before the Learned District Munsiff, Panruti. The said suit came to be decreed as prayed for, on contest by the revision petitioners. A belated challenge was made to the said judgment and decree by preferring an appeal in the year 2022, along with an application in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 seeking condonation of a delay of 2001 days in preferring the appeal.

4. Mr. P.G.Thiyagu, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners had made out sufficient cause, explaining the delay of 2001 days, though the delay on the face of it appears to be inordinate. He would further state that the petitioners also adduced oral and documentary evidence to substantiate justifiable reasons for the delay which have not been taken note of by the Learned Subordinate Court, while proceeding to dismiss the condone delay application. He would further state that the First Appellate Court should have also assessed the material circumstances surrounding execution of a settlement agreement in

Exhibit P1. He would also point out that the intervening Covid-19 pandemic also further prevented the petitioners from diligently prosecuting their appeal remedy. Mr. P.G.Thiyagu, learned counsel for the petitioners, would therefore state that a fair opportunity may be given to the petitioners to establish the genuineness of Exhibit P1 settlement agreement, which if proved to the satisfaction of the Court, would automatically result in setting aside the judgment and decree, passed by the First Appellate Court in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff.

5. Per contra, Mr.S.Kartik, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff, would state that though the petitioners attempted to explain the delay of 2001 days, the evidence that has been relied on by them is self-serving and unilateral and rightly, the First Appellate Court has discarded such evidence and proceeded to hold that the delay has not been sufficiently and satisfactorily explained, as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, he would state that no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Learned Principal Subordinate Court, Panruti, dismissing I.A. No. 1 of 2022.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advance by the learned counsel of the parties. I have gone through the records produced before me by way of typed set of papers, including the impugned order as well as the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners. In fact, in the course of enquiry, the petitioners have examined three witnesses namely the 2nd petitioner, the 3rd petitioner and the 5th petitioner. They have also marked Exhibits P1 – P4. Much reliance has been placed on Exhibit P1, which is the original of an alleged release deed dated 23.10.2017. According to the petitioners, after the disposal of the suit on 15.11.2016, a compromise was reached between the parties which resulted in the execution of the release deed on 23.10.2017 and therefore, the petitioners did not deem it necessary to prefer any appeal. It is also contended by the petitioners, relying on Exhibit P2, which are the photographs of gold jewels, that, in lieu of property and share of the respondent/ plaintiffs, that she was given gold jewellery.

7. As regards the delay, Covid-19 pandemic is sought to be taken advantage of, besides also contending that the 5th petitioner was suffering from cervical pain, jaundice and hyper tension. In fact, Exhibit P3 is an MRI Cervical Spine Report dated 06.11.2014 which has been issued by Mahatma Gandhi Medical and Research Institute, Puducherry. Exhibit P4 series consists of prescriptions dated 24.05.2015 and 24.08.2015, again pertaining to the medical condition of the 5th petitioner alone. Firstly, with regard to the heavy reliance placed on Exhibit P1, the alleged original release deed executed on 23.10.2017, I find that the respondent/ plaintiff who should have been the Executant of the said document has not signed it. On the other hand, it has been signed by petitioners. Therefore, it is evident that Exhibit P1 is not only a self-serving document, but probably created for the purposes of justifying the delay in filing the present appeal.

8. As regards Exhibit P2, mere photographs of gold jewels do not carry the case of the petitioners any further, especially when there is no written acknowledgement on the side of the respondent/ plaintiff that she has received such jewellery or that she has accepted the terms of the release deed. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the First Appellate Court has rightly rejected Exhibits P1 and P2. Even with regard to medical certificates, Exhibit P3 and P4, they are pertaining to a period prior to even the suit being decreed on 15.11.2016. I am unable to see how these 2 documents can be relied on by the petitioners to justify a delay that has been caused after November 2016. Moreover, there is absolutely no whisper as to why the other petitioners were incapacitated or prevented from taking diligent steps to challenge the decree of the Trial Court in time. The oral and documentary evidence, therefore adduced on the side of the petitioners is of no avail and does not satisfy the mandate of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and “sufficient cause occurring therein”.

9. The First Appellate Court has rightly considered all material aspects and found that the petitioners are only attempting to delay the proceedings and deny the legitimate share of the respondent in the suit properties despite having obtained a preliminary decree declaring her share, way back on 15.11.2016. I find no merit in this revision petition warranting interference with the well- considered order of the First Appellate Court.

10. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners would bring to my notice that the parties are already negotiated for the settlement and the petitioners have given a proposal for settling the matter amicably. Therefore, if the settlement proposal is acceptable to the respondents, then notwithstanding the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, the parties are at liberty to proceed with the recording of settlement. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The District Munsif, Panruti.

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP Pre-delivery Order in CRP. No.6184 of 2026 and CMP. No.26767 of 2026 09-10-2026