CRP.SR/59403/2026 of Balasubramaniyam Vs Ramathal on 25 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 41 days in filing the above revision petition

2. The revision petitioners are defendants 4 to 6 in O.S.No.15 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Palladam.

3. The revision petition has been filed, challenging the dismissal of the condone delay application in I.A.No.1 of 2023, filed seeking condonation of 1024 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 11.02.2020. However, admittedly, the revision petition itself has not been filed in time and there is a delay of 419 days in preferring the revision.

4. I have heard Mr.S.Saran Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Adaikkappan @ Sithiraianandam, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 12.

5. The death of the 1st respondent has been recorded on 03.09.2026 and the presence of all the legal representatives of the 1st respondent as respondents 2 to 4 has also been taken note of.

6. Mr.S.Saran Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the petitioners are rustic villagers and agriculturists residing in a remote village of Palladam Taluk and they were not aware of the intricate procedures of law and were entirely dependent on the advice of their advocate. The petitioners came to know about the order of dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2023 only in the last week of November 2024 and hence, the revision petition could not been filed in time. He would further state that the suit being one for partition, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the ex-parte decree is set aside. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not attempting to deny the entitlement of the 1st respondent/plaintiff, through whom the respondents 2 to 4 claim. The learned counsel for the petitioners would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.

7. Per contra, Mr.Adaikkappan @ Sithiraianandam, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 12 would state that there is absolutely no explanation for the huge and inordinate delay of 419 days in preferring the revision petition. He would also state that the revision petition itself challenges an order of dismissal of Section 5 application seeking condonation of delay of 1024 days in seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree.

He would therefore state that the petitioners cannot seek to explain the delay by making a bald statement against their advocate, that he did not inform them about the dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2023 and that they came to know about the same only in November 2024. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

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

9. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.15 of 2019 before the Sub Court, Palladam. Admittedly, the revision petitioners were served with summons in the said suit even as early as in February 2019, more particularly, on 22.02.2019. The petitioners did not contest the preliminary decree and the suit was decreed, granting a preliminary decree on 11.02.2020. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed a final decree application on 22.09.2020 in I.A.No.241 of 2020. The petitioners 1 and 2 were served with notice in the final decree application even on 05.03.2021. However, the 3rd revision petitioner alone entered appearance in the final decree application on 20.12.2022.

10. From the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application in filing the present civil revision petition, I find that excepting for contending that the petitioners are rustic villagers and that they were not aware of the order in I.A.No.1 of 2023, dismissing the condone delay application, thereby foreclosing the right of the petitioners to contest the suit for partition on merits, there is absolutely no sufficient or justifiable cause shown by the petitioners. Even assuming for a moment, even admitting that the petitioners were not aware of the dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2023, at least even thereafter no diligent steps have been taken to challenge the order before this Court. The revision petition has been filed only on 02.04.2026. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the revision could not be filed after the petitioners came to have knowledge about the dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2023 even in November 2024 until April 2026. A vague reason that the petitions are not financially well of and by engaging a counsel in time and for filing the revision by meting the incidental legal costs, the petitioners lost several months in the process cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the revision against the dismissal of condone delay application does not require any payment of huge Court Fees. Therefore, the reasons assigned for not preferring the revision in time, despite the self serving claim of the petitioners themselves that they came to know of the order in November 2024 cannot be countenanced. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained and hence, I do not find any merit in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, warranting exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioners.

11. In the light of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is rejected at the SR stage. 25.09.2026 Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata

P.B.BALAJI.

J, ata Pre-delivery order made in C.M.P.No.15609 of 2026 in CRP.SR.No.59403 of 2026 25.09.2026