CRP.SR/132005/2025 of SARASWATHI Vs N.PALANISAMY on 7 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 3426 days in filing the revision petition.

2. I have heard Mr.B.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the revision petitioner is the appellant, who suffered a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 25.08.1998 and challenging the said decree, the petitioner has preferred a first appeal, along with a delay application seeking condonation of 2257 days. He would further state that the petitioners’ very valuable property will be gone forever and unless the delay is condoned and a fair opportunity is given to the petitioner to prosecute the first appeal on merits. He would further state that the delay has also been satisfactorily explained in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application.

4. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the petitioner is aged 68 years and she was confined to bed because of worsening health conditions, including Arthritis and Osteoporosis. He would also state that the petitioner did not have any family support or financial help which further contributed to the delay. He would therefore pray for the delay being condoned to enable the petitioner to challenge the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court in the revision petition.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the very revision petition itself challenges an order of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of a huge and inordinate delay of 2257 days and even the said revision has been filed belatedly with a longer delay. He would therefore state that there is absolutely no merit in the claims of the petitioner and no cause, much less, sufficient cause has been shown for exercising of discretion in favour of the petitioner.

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

7. As already discussed, excepting for citing advanced age and ill health, the petitioner has not shown any other cause for the delay. The delay is not minimal, but on the contrary inordinate, namely 3426 days. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the very same reasons that were assigned for the delay of 2257 days before the First Appellate Court are reiterated and repeated in the condone delay application filed before this Court. Not a scrap of paper has been filed to substantiate any of the self-serving claims made in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application.

8. In fact, it has also been brought to my notice that the Executing Court has already executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent pursuant to the decree for specific performance as well. In the light of the above, I do not see any sufficient cause having been made out by the petitioner, entitling her to condonation of 3426 days in preferring the revision petition, that too, challenging the order refusing to condone the delay of 2257 days in filing the first appeal, challenging the decree for specific performance. The above only exposes the callous attitude of the petitioner and total lack of diligence exhibited to defend the proceedings in a manner known to law. In view of the above, I do not see any merit in this condone delay application.

9. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed and consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is rejected at the SR stage. 07.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The Principal District Judge, Tiruppur.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CMP.No.24113 of 2025 in CRP.SR.No.132005 of 2025 07.09.2026