CRP(MD)/2682/2026 of PETCHIAMMAL Vs GUNDUMALAI on 30 September 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 04.08.2026 passed in IA.No.2 of 2026 in IA.No.1 of 2022 in IA.No.205 of 2008 in OS.No.733 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Srivilliputhur.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The petitioners instituted the suit for partition and separate possession against the respondents, who are the siblings of the husband of the first petitioner. The second respondent/second defendant had orally relinquished her share in favour of the first respondent/first defendant. The petitioners claimed their respective shares in the suit schedule properties comprising seven items. A preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for on 07.07.2007.

3. Thereafter, an application for passing a final decree was filed in the year 2008. In the final decree proceedings, an Advocate

Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report along with a plan on 20.12.2019. Both the petitioners and the respondents filed their respective objections to the Commissioner’s report. While the final decree application was pending and before orders were passed therein, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking deletion of Items 3 and 7 from the suit schedule properties on the ground that the said items were their self-acquired properties and that the pattas stood in their names. They contended that the said properties had been erroneously included in the suit schedule. When the application was posted for filing a counter, the respondents failed to file their counter. Consequently, the application was allowed in favour of the petitioners.

4. Thereafter, the respondents filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026, seeking condonation of a delay of 776 days and setting aside the ex parte order dated 04.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022. The respondents contended that, owing to their physical incapacity, they were unable to approach their counsel and issue necessary instructions. However, they did not produce any medical certificates or adduce any evidence in support of their contentions. Despite the absence of supporting documentary evidence, the trial Court allowed the applications. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside the order passed by the trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in Subramaniam and another Vs. K.Veerakumar reported in 2014(2) MWN (Civil) 74, wherein, in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 it was held as follows : “"15.As pointed out by the respondent in the counter filed in I.A.No.1175 of 2009, the petitioner participated in the proceedings before the Revenue Court at Bhavani by appearing before the said Court in T.R.No.20 of 2007 on 29.06.2009, 06.07.2009, 28.08.2009, 07.09.2009 and 14.09.2009. That apart, the second petitioners had participated in the proceedings in O.S.No.284 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bhavani on several dates between the period 04.06.2009 and 11.09.2009. Apart from that in another suit in O.S.No.308 of 2007, the second petitioner has appeared and given oral evidence in the said suit during the period from 16.06.2009 to 31.08.2009. That apart affidavits have been filed in other suits and oral evidence have also been given on 01.09.2009, 07.09.2009, 09.09.2009 and 14.09.2009. Further, in the final decree proceedings in the present suit also, the petitioners have entered appearance through counsel and filed counter. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioners in the affidavit stating that on account of ill-health, they could not contact their counsel and only on 02.12.2009, they were able to contact their counsel lacks bona fide. That apart their conduct clearly shows gross negligence and their actions were deliberate in not defending the matter. In such circumstances, the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the petition. Further, the petitioners were unable to establish before the Court about the sickness by producing any record or evidence.

16. Thus the petitioners having been guilty of gross negligence and laches, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

6. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in C.Ravi Vs.Sulochana and others reported in 2020(1) CTC 377, wherein, in paragraph Nos.16 to 19 it was held as follows : “16.Let us now consider the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly, the delay is 668 days in filing the Appeal Suit which is about 2 years. The reasons stated by the petitioner is that he was suffering from multiple disk disorders, Cervical Spondylosis-Radi Culovathy, Acid Peptic Disease, Type II Diabetic Mallitus, low back pain- Bilateral Sciatica and was almost crippled and some other diseases. Perusal of the entire averments made in this regard, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that these kind of diseases cannot be construed as so serious, so as to immobilize the petitioner or even in such immobilization, the 2 years delay or 2 years immobilization may not be possible and further even going beyond that the statement in this regard has not been substantiated by producing relevant medical documents. Even in the case of submitting a medical document, it is insufficient that if a Doctors Certificate is produced.

17. In the present case the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner produced a certificate issued by one Dr.S.Babu, who has issued the certificate stating that “to whomsoever it may concern”. Perusal of the medical certificate raised a doubt that whether the petitioner has taken complete treatment with this Doctor for about 2 years or any other medical documents are available or not. In the absence of any such details in the medical certificate issued by the Doctor stating that petitioner was suffering from multiple disk disorders, Cervical Spondylosis-Radi Culovathy, Acid Peptic Disease, Type II Diabetic Mallitus, low back pain-Bilateral Sciatica and was almost crippled cannot be trusted upon.

18. Thus, the trustworthiness of the medical certificate is not substantiated by filing other supportive documents. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the said medical certificate is insufficient and cannot be trusted upon. Except this, no such documents are enclosed along with condone delay petition. The fact remains that the suit is filed after passing of preliminary decree and the Advocate Commissioner, appointed who had already been received remuneration and the matter is listed on 09.01.2020 for submission of reports.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not made out a ground to condone the enormous delay of 668 days, as the reasons furnished are neither cogent nor convincing. The petitioner could not be able to establish that the huge delay was occurred on account of certain genuine reasons. In the absence of any bonafide or proof, the Court cannot exercise its discretionary powers so as to condone the enormous delay of 668 days.”

7. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents had failed to establish sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 776 days by producing any supporting documents or adducing evidence. It was further contended that the delay, which was nearly two years, could not have been condoned in the absence of cogent and convincing reasons. The learned counsel therefore, prayed that the order passed by the trial Court be set aside.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

9. Upon perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondents, who are aged about 77 and 75 years, respectively, filed applications to set aside the order dated 04.01.2024 passed against them. The respondents contended that the first respondent was paralysed and was not in a position to attend Court or communicate with their counsel. They further contended that the second respondent was suffering from age-related ailments, was bedridden, and was unable to attend Court.

10. The trial Court, taking into consideration the fact that the final decree application was still pending and that the application filed by the petitioners seeking deletion of certain items from the suit schedule properties had been allowed in the absence of a counter from the respondents, held that an opportunity ought to be afforded to the respondents to contest the matter. Having considered their age and the reasons assigned for their inability to participate in the proceedings, the trial Court accepted their explanation and allowed the applications.

11. It is true that the respondents did not produce any medical certificates or adduce evidence in support of their claim that they were paralysed and bedridden. However, the respondents are aged about 77 and 75 years, respectively, and have specifically pleaded that their physical condition prevented them from attending Court and instructing their counsel. The mere non-production of medical certificates, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot by itself be a ground to reject their explanation.

12. Further, the petitioners had sought deletion of Items 3 and 7 from the suit schedule properties on the ground that the said items were their self-acquired properties. The application was allowed in the absence of a counter from the respondents. If the respondents are not afforded an opportunity to contest the said application, their rights and interests in the suit proceedings may be affected. It is also relevant to note that the final decree application is still pending before the trial Court.

13. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court, having considered the age and the circumstances pleaded by the respondents, exercised its discretion in favour of providing an opportunity to contest the matter. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial Court does not call for interference, and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

30.09.2026 Index : Yes / No RM

To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Srivilliputhur.

R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.2682 of 2026 30.09.2026