Madras High Court
CRP/6270/2026 of M. Poonkothai Vs S. Amsa Ammal on 7 October 2026
CRP No. 6270 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6270 of 2026
and
C.M.P.No.27055 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012290542026}
M. Poonkothai
..Petitioner
Vs
1. Amsa Ammal
2. The Director of School Education
(R2 to R7 Given Up)
DPI Complex College Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
3. The Chief Education officer,
Vellore District,
Vellore-9.
4. The Head Master,
Govt.Boys Hr.Secondary School,
Ranipet,
5. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India,
MF Road
Ranipet,
6. D.Ezhumalai
7. D.Settu
..Respondents
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )
CRP No. 6270 of 2026
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 14.08.2026
passed in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in AS No.Nil/2026 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ranipet by allowing this CRP.
For Petitioner :
Mr.D.Rameshkumar
For Respondents :
Mr.P.Sunil
Government Advocate
Takes Notice for RR2 to R7
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 First Appellate Court, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner, seeking to condone the delay of 900 days in filing the appeal.
2. The first respondent herein filed a suit for partition against the petitioner and other respondents. The said suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal with a delay of 900 days. The First Appellate Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the condone delay application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by taking this Court to the condone delay affidavit, would submit that after disposal of the suit, there were mediation talks between the petitioner and the first respondent and believing the words of the first respondent, the petitioner failed to file an appeal
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )
CRP No. 6270 of 2026
immediately and the same has been filed only after receipt of notice in the final decree proceedings.
4. The suit has been decreed in favour of the first respondent on 03.07.2023. The petitioner filed the First Appeal only in the year 2026 with a delay of 900 days. The inordinate delay in filing the appeal cannot be explained lightly by saying that the petitioner believed the words of the first respondent and engaged in the mediation talks. The allegation made by the petitioner has not been supported by any kind of evidence. The petitioner failed to examine the alleged Mediators, who mediated the talks between the petitioner and the first respondent. In the absence of any evidence to support the allegations found in the affidavit, the First Appellate Court rightly refused to condone the delay. I do not find any perversity in the approach of the First Appellate Court.
5. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No kak
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )
CRP No. 6270 of 2026
To The learned Judge, Principal District Court, Ranipet.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )
CRP No. 6270 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J. kak CRP No. 6270 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.27055 of 2026
07-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )