Madras High Court
CRP/3650/2023 of Kalavathi (Deceased) 1.Kavitha Vs RAMADASS on 6 October 2026
CRP No. 3650 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 3650 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA011770492023}
Kalavathi (Deceased)
1. 1.Kavitha, D/o.Natarajan, Nataraja Complex, Sandhai Pettai St, Veeraganur Village and Post, Gangavalli Tk, Salem Dist.
2. Deepa, D/o.Natarajan, Nataraja Complex, Sandhai Pettai St, Veeraganur Village and Post, Gangavalli Tk, Salem Dist.
Meera (deceased)
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Ramadass, S/o.Ponnusamy Reddiar, D.No.195, Sandhi Pettai St, Veeraganur Village and Post, Gangavalli Tk, Salem Dist.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Decreetal Order and Fair Order dated 10th July 2023
passed in IA.No.1 of 2021 in OS.No. 60 of 2011 on the file Additional District Munsif Court, Attur.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. S.Bala Subramaniam
For Respondent(s):
Mr. B.Gopalakrishnan
__________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP No. 3650 of 2023
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, allowing the application filed by the respondent seeking to condone the delay of 1244 days in re-presenting the restoration petition.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title regarding the common cart tract and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching the existing cart tract. The suit was dismissed for default and hence, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application seeking to restore the suit. The said application was returned by the court on 28.06.2017. Since the returned papers were accidentally mixed up with the old papers, there was a delay in retrieving the same and to represent it. Hence, the respondent has filed the instant application seeking to condone the delay of 1244 days in representation. The said delay has been condoned by the Trial Court on condition the respondent should pay costs of Rs.5000/- to the defendants/petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the affidavit in support of the condone delay petition has been sworn by the Advocate Clerk and not by the respondent. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed an error in __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP No. 3650 of 2023 allowing the petition, based on the said affidavit filed by the Advocate Clerk.
4. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition would indicate that the restoration petition was returned by the court on 28.06.2017 and the same was kept in the office of the respondent’s Advocate. The returned papers were mixed up with the old bundles and hence, the same could not be represented in time. After retrieval of the returned papers from the old bundles, the same was re-presented and in such circumstances, there occurred a delay of 1244 days.
5. The facts narrated in the affidavit are pertaining to the happenings that had taken place in the office of the counsel for the respondent. Therefore, only the Advocate or the Advocate Clerk are competent to narrate the facts relating to the happenings that had taken place in their office. Though the respondent is a party to the litigation, he may not have any personal knowledge about the happenings that had taken place in the office of the Advocate. Therefore, the affidavit was rightly sworn by the Advocate Clerk. The Trial Court, accepting the reasons assigned in the affidavit, exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent and had inclined to condone the delay in re-presentation. I do not find any illegality or error in the impugned order. __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP No. 3650 of 2023
6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The Additional District Munsif, Attur. __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP No. 3650 of 2023 S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 3650 of 2023 06-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )