Madras High Court
CRP/6170/2026 of Saravanan Vs Murugesan on 5 October 2026
CRP.No.6170 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.6170 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012266692026}
Saravanan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Murugesan
2. Lakshmanan
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Fair and Final order dated 07.08.2026 made in
I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.274 of 2009 on the file of learned District Munsif’s Court, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District and allow the above Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner
: Mr.R.Vasudevan
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:36 pm )
CRP.No.6170 of 2026
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 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.274 of 2009, dated 07.08.2026, dismissing the application field by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 3374 days in filing a petition to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default.
2. The petitioner herein filed a suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed for default on 12.08.2014. Hence, the petitioner filed an application to restore the suit along with a petition to condone the delay of 3374 days. The said condone delay petition has been dismissed by the Trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the counsel on record for the petitioner, who conducted the suit died and hence, there was inordinate delay of 3374 days in filing the petition to restore the suit.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:36 pm )
CRP.No.6170 of 2026
4. It is seen from the typed-set of papers that the suit was dismissed for default on 12.08.2014 and the instant application has been filed only in the year 2024, nearly after 10 years. In the affidavit filed in support of condone delay petition, it was stated by the petitioner that he engaged a counsel by namely Mr.M.Yuvaraj and he did not intimate the stage of the case, later he died. Thereafter, there was a difficulty in getting the papers from his junior counsel and hence, there was delay of 3374 days.
5. The petitioner has not stated the date of death of the counsel. Further, he has not produced any material to show that he really contacted his counsel and made an attempt to get the suit restored. The reason given by him as if, he was prevented from filing necessary application because of non-availability of bundle is not acceptable to this Court, as the certified copies of the material papers could be received from the Court, had the petitioner exercised due diligence. The vague allegation made by the petitioner to explain the inordinate delay of 3374 days is not at all acceptable and the same will not sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:36 pm )
CRP.No.6170 of 2026
6. The Trial Court rightly appreciated the said position and dismissed the condone delay petition. I do not find any error in the said order.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:36 pm )
CRP.No.6170 of 2026
To The District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:36 pm )
CRP.No.6170 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.6170 of 2026 05-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:37:36 pm )