CRP/4029/2026 of R.Suganthi Vs Vijayakumar on 25 September 2026

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the 4th defendant in O.S.No.267 of 2007, aggrieved by the order of dismissal of Section 5 application under the Limitation Act, refusing to condone the delay of 1915 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 22.09.2016.

2. I have heard Mr.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the contesting 1st respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would state that though the delay on the face of the length, namely 1915 days appears to be lengthy and inordinate, the Trial Court has failed to see that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause and being a suit relating to immovable property, the Trial Court should have adopted a more liberal approach. He would further state that the petitioner was married and she was under the bonafide impression that her mother and her brother would be contesting the suit for specific performance. He would further state that being a daughter of the original owner, late Somasundaram, the petitioner has a definite share in the suit property and therefore the petitioner ought to have been afforded a fair opportunity to contest the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that soon after receipt of notice in E.P.No.34 of 2017 on 17.11.2017, within few days, applications were filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree, more specifically, on 14.12.2017. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said applications were returned by the Court on 16.12.2017, but however, the actual fact remained that the applications, along with the bundle were misplaced in the Court and therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to represent or further prosecute the said applications. He would therefore state that when genuine and diligent steps have been taken in time, soon after the receipt of the notice in the execution petition, the Court ought to have allowed the condone delay application.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting 1st respondent would state that the petitioner has sworn to a false affidavit and rightly the Trial Court has found that the delay has not been sufficiently explained and proceeded to dismiss the condone delay application. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

6. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.267 of 2007 for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into by the father of the petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent / plaintiff. Pending the suit, the father of the revision petitioner died, leaving behind the petitioner, his wife and a son, who are also arrayed as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit and the petitioner was arrayed as 4th defendant, pursuant to the demise of the original defendant, Somasundaram, father of the revision petitioner.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner entrusted the matter to be taken care of by her mother and brother and she was under the bonafide impression that they would be attending to the suit and after succeeding, they would give a due 1/3rd share to her. Believing the representations of her mother and brother, according to the petitioner, she did not take any follow up steps. However, only when she received notice in the EP on 17.11.2017, the petitioner claims that she was aware of the ex-parte decree being passed on 22.09.2016 and in fact, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1. She admits to the fact that she received suit summons and she signed the vakalat along with her mother and brother. Therefore, firstly, it is not a case where the petitioner was not served with summons. The petitioner was fully aware of the filing of the suit. The petitioner now cannot conveniently attempt to shift the blame on her mother and brother, contending that she was under the impression that they would take care of the matter. The party to the lis has to be diligent in safeguarding his/her rights and interest and can neither blame the counsel engaged nor the other parties who are related to him/her.

Yet another reason that has been given is that soon after receipt of notice in the

8. Further, the trial Court has also taken note of the admissions made by P.W.1 with regard to receipt of summons in the suit and also return of the applications filed by her even in December 2017. The petitioner, in fact, in her examination, has further stated that in June 2019 itself an affidavit was filed regarding the missing bundle. However, a copy of such affidavit has not been produced before the Trial Court, despite the petitioner choosing to examine herself as P.W.1 and when the petitioner herself admitted that the applications were returned in December 2017, then the mentioning of an alleged affidavit being filed in June 2019 regarding the missing bundle can only be an after thought. The delay is clearly not satisfactorily explained. Therefore, I do not see any perversity or illegality in the well considered order of the Trial Court warranting interference.

9. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 25.09.2026 Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata

P.B.BALAJI.

J, ata To The Principal District Munsif at Pollachi. Pre-delivery order made in CRP.No.4029 of 2026 25.09.2026