Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2515/2026 of Marikkannu Vs Balamuthu on 17 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2515 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD011204802026}
Case QR
1.Thennanthiraiyanpatti
2. Kaliyaperumal
3. Vellaikaanu
4. Boopathi
5. Elaiyaraja
... Petitioner(s)
–
Vs. -
1. Balamuthu
2. Raja
3. Ramaiah
4. Muthuraman
5. Sri Devi
Pitchai (Died)
6. Vallirasu
7. Devaraj
8. Sakthivel
9. Kumaresan
... Respondent(s)
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair order dated 03.06.2026 in I.A.No.01 of 2023 in O.S.No.190 of 2012 on the file of the Learned District Munsif Judge, Keeranur and thereby render justice.
For Petitioners
: Mr.P.Ganaptahi Subramanian
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
This petition is filed against the order dated 03.06.2026 in I.A.No.01 of 2023 in O.S.No.190 of 2012 on the file of the Learned District Munsif Judge, Keeranur.
2. The petitioners were the plaintiffs who filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants in O.S. No. 190 of 2012. The first petitioner is an old man and his son, Kaliyaperumal, who is the second petitioner, was working in the Electricity Board (EB) Department. He was transferred to Keeramangalam and the first petitioner also accompanied his son and stayed with him there. Because of this, neither the petitioner nor his family members were able to contact their advocate. Further, due to his old age and because he was suffering from chronic jaundice, the first petitioner became unwell and was continuously undergoing medical treatment. As a result, he was unable to contact his advocate. The suit was posted for trial on 23.10.2017. Since the petitioners did not appear before the Court on that date, the suit was dismissed for default.
3. The petitioner further states that the first petitioner's failure to appear before the Trial Court on 23.10.2017 was neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, he filed I.A. No. 01 of 2023 seeking to condone the delay of 2184 days in filing the petition to restore the suit, which had been dismissed for default on 23.10.2017. The petitioner states that the Trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner had failed to provide details regarding the period of his illness, the treatment he had undergone, and the circumstances that caused the delay. The Trial Court further observed that the first petitioner had not explained why the other petitioners, namely petitioners 2 to 5, had also failed to take steps to restore the suit for nearly six years. The petitioners had not given any sufficient explanation to satisfy the Court regarding the long delay. For these reasons, the Trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said petition, the present revision petition has been filed before the higher court.
4. The petitioner states that he has a good case in his favour. The first petitioner/plaintiff is about 75 years old. Due to the transfer of his son, he was unable to contact his advocate. The petitioner further states that he purchased the property in the year 2001. However, according to him, the defendants purchased the same property in the year 2012 through a fraudulent transaction. Therefore, the petitioner states that if his petition is not allowed and the suit is not restored, he will suffer serious hardship and prejudice.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the suit was originally posted for the appearance of the petitioners on 23.10.2017. However, even after nearly six years, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to restore the suit. The revision petitioner, who is the first plaintiff, has stated that he is about 75 years old and, due to his illness, was unable to contact his counsel. However, the records show that the suit was not filed by the first petitioner alone. He filed the suit along with his sons, who are plaintiffs 2 to 5, against the respondents. None of the other plaintiffs came forward to file a petition for restoration of the suit even after it was dismissed. However, after a delay of six years, the petitioner has not produced any medical records or other satisfactory evidence to explain the delay. He has merely stated that he was suffering from jaundice and was taking traditional medicine. The Court did not find this explanation convincing. The other petitioners also remained silent and did not take any steps to restore the suit during this period. This indicates that they were not sufficiently interested in pursuing the case. Now, after six years, they have come forward with a petition to restore the suit, but they have not given any acceptable or convincing reason for the delay. Therefore, there is no sufficient ground even to admit the Revision Petition.
7. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 17.09.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns To
1. The District Munsif Judge, Keeranur.
2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
R.POORNIMA
, J. Ns CRP(MD) NO. 2515 of 2026 17.09.2026