CRP/3215/2024 of SUNDARESAN Vs E.ASHOKAN on 29 September 2026

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

2. The present revision petition challenges the order dismissing the application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.C.N.R.No.1263 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kanchipuram.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the delay was only 33 days in preferring the appeal against the preliminary judgement and decree passed in a suit for partition, where admittedly, the petitioners are entitled to a 1/4th, share in all the items of suit properties, having stepped into the shoes of

CRP No. 3215 of 2024

the predecessor’s in interest, who was one of the four co-owners. However, the Ist Appellate Court has dismissed the application stating that there is no sufficient cause shown by the petitioners explaining the delay of 33 days.

4. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff, Mr.Y.Jyothish Chander, would contend that the petitioners are bent upon protracting the proceedings and despite the 1st respondent becoming entitled to the decree way back in the year 2017, the respondent is unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree. He also brings to my notice that even the final decree was passed on 19.09.2022, which has also not been challenged. He would also state that the application for appointment of Commissioner was challenged by way of C.M.A. which also came to be dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that as against the final decree, C.M.A. was filed and the same is pending in C.M.A.SR.No.12840 of 2022.

5. In the light of the above, it is clear that the petitioners have not shown any seriousness in prosecuting either the First Appeal preferred against the preliminary decree or even the challenge the final decree passed in the year 2022.

6. However, there is no purpose being served in condoning the delay and permitting to challenge the preliminary decree at this belated juncture,

CRP No. 3215 of 2024

considering the fact that the final decree has not been challenged, despite the same having been passed in the year 2022. The certified copy of the Commissioner’s report has also been forwarded for my perusal by Mr.Y.Jyothish chander, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. I find that the Commissioner has only divided the properties in four equal portions and has not specifically allotted specific demarcated portion in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. However, while passing the final decree, specific portions has been demarcated in terms of the final decree and the respondent/plaintiff has been allotted, ‘A’ portion measuring 9.25 cents in S.No.225/1. (Ex.C2 plan), ‘A’ portion measuring 4.25 cents in S.No.307/7 (Ex.C4 plan) and ‘A’ portion measuring 196 sq.ft. in S.No.400/10 (Ex.C5 plan)

7. It is only in order to execute the said final decree and recover possession that the E.P. had been filed even in 2022. Till date the petitioners have not been able to prosecute their application to condone delay of 33 days in preferring against the preliminary decree. Further worse, the final decree is not even challenged as on date.

8. In the light of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Court, dismissing the application, considering much water has flown subsequently and total inaction and lack of diligence on the part of the petitioners to prosecute the appeals filed by them.

CRP No. 3215 of 2024

However, it is open to the petitioners to take out separate applications and to have their shares demarcated in terms of the preliminary decree. The Executing Court shall dispose of the E.P. on or before 31.10.2026.

9. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vsi

CRP No. 3215 of 2024

P.B.BALAJI, J. vsi CRP No. 3215 of 2024 29-09-2026