CRP/3749/2026 of Lalitha Vs A.Mani on 24 September 2026

ORDER

The defendants 1 and 2 are the revision petitioners, aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No.2 of 2024, in O.S. No.114 of 2019, on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Vellore.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Kathiresan, leraned counsel for the first respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were unable to pursue their defence in the suit filed by the first respondent, which resulted in an exparte decree being passed on 30.01.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioners further states that it is only after the petitioner received notice in the Execution Proceedings, viz., E.P. No.134 of 2022, they came to even know about the exparte judgement and decree and immediately, they had filed an Application in I.A. No.2 of 2024, along with their written statement and sought for condonation of delay of 1289 days. The learned counsel further states that the petitioners have a good case on merits and the first respondent should not be allowed to take advantage of an exparte decree passed behind the back of the petitioners. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed and a fair opportunity being given to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits.

4. Per contra, Mr.K.Kathiresan, learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that the Trial Court has rightly found that the delay of almost three years has not been explained with any sufficient cause or reasons and hence, the order dismissing I.A. No.2 of 2024, does not warrant any interference.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the impugned order in the revision petition.

6. The reasons set out by the petitioner in I.A. No.2 of 2024 filed by the petitioners/defendants is that both the petitioners were affected by Corona and were bedridden at home and taking country medicines for treatment and hence, they were aware of the decree only after receipt of the notice in the Execution Petition. Admittedly, the decree was passed on 30.01.2020, and it is not in dispute that the petitioners were served with summons in the suit, even in 2019, prior to the defendants being set exparte. Therefore, the explanation offered that both the petitioners were affected by Covid -19 pandemic, cannot merit any acceptance, especially since it is only after March, 2020, that the Covid-19 pandemic became prevalent in India and there was no indication of the disease in January 2020, or even upto late March 2020.

7. In any event, the petitioners have chosen to file the Application only in February, 2024, long after even the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the limitation period upto 28.02.2022. The Execution Petition also has been filed in 2022, itself and therefore, the delay of 1289 days is absolutely unjustified and unsubstantiated. The Trial Court has also rightly found that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause and no oral or documentary evidence are also adduced in support of the averments set out in the condone delay application.

8. The learned counsel place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabin Thapa Vs. Rohit Dora, reported in 2019 (6) CTC 344 and the decision of this Court in Prabakaran Vs. Latchumi Priya, reported in 2025 (3) MWN (Civil) 657. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a suit for specific performance, where the defendant had raised substantial defence, then the suit warrants adjudication of triable issues and litigation should not be terminated by default on the side of the either of the parties viz., the plaintiff and the defendant, subsequently, the law has taken a sea turn. In a much later and recent decision in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others, reported in 2025 INSC 1104, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that at the stage of consideration of a condone delay application, the Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the main case and should confine itself to whether sufficient cause is shown or not.

9. In Prabakaran's case (referred herein supra), again this Court only relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabin Thapa's case (referred herein supra). However, in view of the later march of law, as discussed herein above, culminating in Shivamma's case, (referred herein supra), I do not see these decisions coming to the rescue of the revision petition.

10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Trial Court and accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. No costs. 24-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Vellore, Vellore District.

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP CRP NO. 3749 OF 2026 and CMP. Nos.16265 & 25420 of 2026 24-09-2026