Madras High Court
CRP.SR/161204/2019 of SENBAGAVALLI(DIED) Vs SAROJA(DIED) on 23 September 2026
CMP No. 20612 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CMP No. 20612 of 2024
in
CRP.SR. No.161204 of 2019
Senbagavalli (Died)
Rajendran (Died)
1. M R.Savithri
W/o. Late Rajendran, 23, Palaniappa Street, Periyamodachur, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode, Senbagavalli(died), Rajendran(died)
2. R Vidhya
W/o. Veerakumar, 141/4/1, Amman Illam,
Dr.Avenue Road, Nethaji Nagar,
Kurikkaranpalayam, Erode
3. M R Prabhu
S/o. Rajendran, 23, Palaniappa Street,
periyamodachur, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. SAROJA (DIED)
1. M.Selvaraj
S/o. Marimuthu Nadar, 29, Palaniappa Street, Periyamodachur, Gobichettipalayam Taluk
2. Latha Magesh
W/o. Saravanan, Plot No.66, Kasi Estate, Kasi Theare Backside, Jabharkhanpet, Chennai-600 083.
3. Sathish Kanna
S/o. M.Selvaraj, 29, Palainappa Street,
periyamodachur, Gobichettipalayam Taluk,
4. Suseela
D/o. Rajram, 3 Mariamman Koil Street,
Periyamodachur, Gobichettipalayam Taluk
CMP No. 20612 of 2024
5. Rajarathinam
S/o. Kuppusamy Nadi, 6, Palaniappa Street, Periyamodachur, Gobichettipalayam Taluk
6. Dhanalakshmi
W/o. Meganathan, Valodai, Koovathur Vazhi, Nerkulapatti Post, Sayur Taluk, Kanchipuram District
7. Siva Shanmugam
S/o. Kuppusamy Nadar, 23, Palaniappa Streer, Periyamodachur, Gobichettipalayam Taluk
8. Krishna Kumar
S/o. Kuppusamy Nadar, 23, Palaniappa Street, Periyamodachur, Gobichettipalayam Taluk
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Order IV Rule 9(4)
of AS Rules, to condone the delay of 1665 days in representing the above Civil Revision Petition in CRP SR No.161204/2019
For Appellant(s):
Mr.K.M.Hareesh for
M/s.PV Law Associates
For Respondent(s):
Mr.I.M.Siddartha Ramarajan
for Mrs.V.Rajeswari for R1 to R3
Mr.Swami Subramanian
for R4 and R6
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1665 days, in re-presenting the revision petition in CRP.SR. No.161204 of 2019.
2. I have heard Mr.K.M.Harish, learned counsel for M/s.P.V.Law Associates, appearing for the petitioners and Mr.I.M.Siddartha Ramarajan, learned counsel for Mrs.Rajeswari, for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Swami Subramanian, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6.
CMP No. 20612 of 2024
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the suit in O.S. No.173 of 2000, was filed by one Saroja, for partition and permanent injunction and that an exparte decree came to be passed on 27.03.2002. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners came to know about the proceedings only after receipt of notice in the final decree proceedings and immediately, an Application was filed seeking to set aside the exparte preliminary decree along with a delay of 1890 days in filing the Application to set aside the exparte preliminary decree. The said application was numbered in I.A. No.289 of 2013 and after enquiry, the Trial Court dismissed the said Application finding that the petitioners have not made out sufficient cause. Challenging the dismissal of the condone delay Application, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Registry returned the revision on 06.01.2020, noticing certain defects and the said defects were complied with and papers were re-presented on 05.08.2024. The intervening delay of 1665 days in re-presenting the revision is justified citing that the petitioners' father was unwell for few months and subsequently, he died on 24.10.2022 and that only after his demise, the petitioners came to know about the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition and only on this ground, the revision could not be re-presented in time. He would therefore state that the petitioners may be given a fair opportunity to contest and prosecute the revision
CMP No. 20612 of 2024
on merits, especially since the suit for partition filed by the plaintiff Saroja itself was vexatious suit in the first place.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the delay is wholly unexplained and even the reasons assigned by the third petitioner in the affidavit in support of the application to condone the delay of 1665 days are sufficient to reject the reasons as not bonafide and far from showing sufficient cause. In this regard, he would take me through paragraph No.3 of the affidavit, where the petitioners' attempt to justify the delay. The learned counsel for the respondents therefore prays for dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
7. The revision petition itself has been filed challenging the dismissal of an Application seeking condonation of 1890 days. Even after filing of the revision, the petitioners have not prosecuted the revision petition diligently. The revision was filed before this Court even in 2019 and for certain compliances and defects, the Registry returned the same on 06.01.2020. Only on 05.08.2024, the returns were complied with and the revision was re-presented and there is an inordinate delay of 1665 days in re-presenting the revision. The only reason assigned for the delay is that the father of the petitioners was unwell for few
CMP No. 20612 of 2024
months and eventually, he died on 24.10.2022 and that only after the demise of the father, the petitioners came to know about the pendency of the revision petition at the SR stage.
8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents even according to the admitted case of the petitioners, their father was unwell only for few months and he died even as early as on 24.10.2022. Though the petitioners claim that after the demise of their father, they came to know about pendency of the revision, there is absolutely no explanation as to why the revision was not re-presented until 05.08.2024. Even assuming a benefit of doubt can be given in favour of the petitioners up to the demise of their father in October, 2022, even then, there is absolutely no explanation as to why, the revision was not re-presented until 05.08.2024, close to two years thereafter. Thus, the reasons assigned by the petitioners are highly unsatisfactory and do not make out sufficient cause entitling them to an order of condonation of delay.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP
CMP No. 20612 of 2024
P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP To The Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam. CMP No. 20612 of 2024 in CRP.SR. No.161204 of 2019 23-09-2026