Madras High Court
CRP/6525/2026 of Jagajothi Vs Rani on 9 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6525 of 2026 and
CMP No.28102 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012534752025}
1. Jagajothi, D/o Chinnasamy,
Res at Sivadi Kaattuvalaivu,
Nallampallai Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
2. Dhanasekar, S/o Chinnasamy,
Res at Sivadi Kaattuvalaivu,
Nallampallai Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
3. Amutha, D/o Chinnasamy,
Res at Sivadi Kaattuvalaivu,
Nallampallai Taluk, Dharmapuri District..
4. Gandhimathi, D/o Chinnasamy,
Res at Sivadi Kaattuvalaivu,
Nallampallai Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Rani, W/o Lakshmanan,
21/2-17, Perumal Kovil St, Meyyanur,
Alamarakadu, Salem 636 009.
2. Shanthi, W/o. Guanavel
D.No. 68/3, R.K. Nagar, 8th Ward
Mettur Main Road, Omalur Taluk
Salem District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the fair and decretal order passed by the Additional Sub Court, Dharmapuri in IA No.287 of 2021 in OS No.40 of 2013 dated 06.06.2025.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. P.M.Jayachandran
For Respondent(s):
Mr. T.Balaji
for Mr. A.Thiyagarajan
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
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners, seeking to condone the delay of 2313 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte preliminary decree passed against them.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.40 of 2013 for partition and the said suit was decreed exparte on 10.11.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application to set aside the exparte preliminary decree along with a petition to condone the delay on 09.04.2021. Not satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit, the Trial Court has dismissed the condone delay petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after service of summons in the suit, there was a mediation talk between the petitioners and the respondents/plaintiffs through the elders of the Village. He further submitted that the respondents assured before the elders that they would withdraw the suit and believing their words, the petitioners have not taken any steps to file written statement in the suit and in such circumstances, the Trial Court has passed the exparte preliminary dencree and hence he prayed to set aside the impugned order.
4. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the exparte preliminary decree was passed against the petitioners on 10.11.2014. Thereafter, the respondents/ plaintiffs filed a final decree petition and notice was also served on the petitioners in the final decree proceedings in the year 2019. Even after receipt of notice in the final decree petition, the petitioners have not taken any steps to contest the same and hence, they were set exparte in the final decree proceedings also. Leisurely, after waiting for two years, the petitioners have filed the instant application on 09.04.2021 to set aside the exparte preliminary decree passed against them stating that they were engaged in mediation talks. The reason given by the petitioners that they were engaged in the mediation talks has not been substantiated by letting any evidence and for the reasons best known to them, they failed to examine the alleged mediators. Further, it is seen from the typed set of papers that the petitioners failed to take any steps to set aside the exparte preliminary decree, ever after service of notice in the final decree proceedings in the year 2019. The petitioners have no explanation for the delay from the year 2019 to 2021. The Trial Court rightly appreciated the above said facts and dismissed the condone delay petition and I do not find any error in the impugned order.
5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri.
S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 6525 of 2026 09-10-2026