CRP/6111/2026 of Rani Vs Mutahmmal on 5 October 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the District Munsif Court, Omalur, in I.A.No.2 of 2021 (As per E-Court entry I.A.No.3 of 2021) in O.S.No.224 of 2004, dated 28.04.2026, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 3969 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for partition against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Kaikara Kandasamy @ Periyathambi and others. The exparte preliminary decree for partition was passed in the suit on 31.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioners’ predecessor-in- interest namely Kaikara Kandasamy @ Periyathambi died on 25.06.2013. The petitioners had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit and they acquired knowledge about the suit only after receipt of notice in the final decree proceedings during December-2018. Thereafter, the instant application has been filed by them seeking to set aside the exparte decree passed against their predecessor-in-interest and to condone the delay of 3969 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. These petitions were filed by the petitioners on 13.08.2021. The Trial Court by the impugned

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 07:55:47 pm )

CRP.No.6111 of 2026

order dismissed the condone delay petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit and the same was looked after by their predecessor-in-interest, Kaikara Kandasamy @ Periyathambi and after acquiring knowledge about the pendency of the suit in the year 2018, due to covid outbreak the petitioners could not take immediate steps to set aside the exparte decree. Therefore, a liberal approach may be taken.

4. It is seen from the typed-set of papers that the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest Kaikara Kandasamy @ Periyathambi was arrayed as 1st defendant in the suit and an exparte decree was passed on 31.08.2010. Even as per the admitted case of the petitioners that the said Kaikara Kandasamy @ Periyathambi died on 25.06.2013. Therefore, it is clear that he failed to take any steps to set aside the exparte decree for nearly three years during his life time. After death of said Kaikara Kandasamy @ Periyathambi, the respondent/plaintiff filed final decree proceedings and the petitioners admittedly received notice in the final decree proceedings during December-2018. However, the petitioners filed the instant application to set aside the exparte decree only on 13.08.2021, nearly after three years.

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 07:55:47 pm )

CRP.No.6111 of 2026

5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that due to covid outbreak, they could not file the application in time, it is a matter of common knowledge that the covid outbreak had happened only in the year March-2020. The petitioners have not given any valid reason for explaining the delay from December-2018 to March-2020.

6. Taking into consideration, the delay on the part of the petitioners’ father Kaikara Kandasamy @ Periyathambi in his failure to take any steps to set aside the exparte decree during his life time and also the petitioners failure to file application immediately after receipt of notice, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition to condone the inordinate delay of 3969 days. I do not find any error in the said order.

7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 07:55:47 pm )

CRP.No.6111 of 2026

To The District Munsif Court, Omalur.

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 07:55:47 pm )

CRP.No.6111 of 2026

S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.6111 of 2026 and CMP.No.26455 of 2026 05-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 07:55:47 pm )