CRP/4457/2026 of M.A.Bhageerathi Vs M.A.Sundareswaran on 7 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

C.R.P.No.4457 of 2026 has been filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court, allowing the application filed by the respondents, seeking to condone the delay of 6 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The other revision in C.R.P.No.4460 of 2026 has been filed, challenging the order passed by the trial Court, allowing the application filed by the respondents, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed.

2. The petitioner herein filed a suit for partition against the respondents. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 13.12.2023. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree and also to condone the delay of 6 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. These two applications were allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 09.06.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree has not been properly explained by the respondents and in spite of the same, the trial Court allowed the applications. The learned counsel also submits that the respondents filed a Probate O.P. before this Court in O.P.No.272 of 2024. When the respondents are able to prosecute the said Probate Original Petition diligently, the reason given by the respondents for filing the petition with a delay is not acceptable.

4. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, it was asserted by the first respondent, that he was suffering from fever at the relevant point of time and hence, he could not file the petition within time. It is also asserted that the delay in filing the application was neither wilful nor wanton.

5. In the affidavit, it is also asserted by the first respondent that he contracted fever due to the then weather conditions. Taking into consideration that the ex parte decree was passed on 13.12.2023, which is a winter month, this Court comes to the conclusion that the reasons given by the respondents are more probable as it has been sufficiently explained.

6. Apart from the reasons given by the respondents, the suit is between siblings and the relief sought for in the suit is for partition. The respondents opposed the partition by relying on a Will and the Probate application is pending before this Court. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the trial Court rightly adopted a liberal view of the matter and allowed the applications, affording an opportunity to the parties to contest the case on merits.

7. Having regard to the length of delay and the reasons pleaded by the respondents in their affidavit, this Court feels that the trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in favour of the respondents in condoning the delay. I do not find any perversity in the approach of the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No kak To The learned Judge, XXI Additional City Civil Court at Allikulam, Chennai.

S.SOUNTHAR, J. kak CRP Nos. 4457 & 4460 of 2026 07-10-2026