Madras High Court
CRP/6171/2025 of Pangajavalli Vs Pushpavalli on 3 September 2026
CRP No. 6171 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 6171 of 2025
and
C.M.P. No.30297 of 2025
1. Pangajavalli
2. Karunakaran
3. Shanmugavel
4. Kuppusamy
5. Sakthivel
..Petitioners
Vs
Pushpavalli
..Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the fair and decretal order of the Principal District Court at Ariyalur dated 01.11.2025 in I.A.No.9 of 2025 in O.S.No.41 of 2021.
For Petitioners:
Mr.Hareesh K.M for M/s.PV Law Associates For Respondent:
Mr.S.S.Rajesh
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 Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order of the Principal District Court at Ariyalur dated 01.11.2025 in I.A.No.9 of 2025 in O.S.No.41 of 2021.
2. Heard Mr.Hareesh K.M, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.S.Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
CRP No. 6171 of 2025
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of a condone delay application seeking condonation of a delay of 185 days.
4. Mr.K.M.Hareesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the trial Court has adopted a very rigid approach in requiring the petitioners to show sufficient cause for each and every day's delay and has non-suited the petitioners, finding that no sufficient cause has been shown. He further stated that the fourth petitoner was suffering from elephantiasis/elephant foot disease and hence he was not in a position to appear and proceed with the trial of the suit.
5. Mr.S.S.Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, states that there is no infirmity in the order of the trial Court, since there were other defendants who could have appeared and contested the suit.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioners are claiming that the property has already been partitioned, the Court could have adopted a more liberal approach, considering that it is only a dispute amongst close family members. Hence, I am inclined to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.9 of 2025 in O.S.No.41 of 2021 dated 01.11.2025, refusing to condone the delay and also consequently set aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.41 of 2021 as well, to enable expeditious disposal of the suit.
CRP No. 6171 of 2025
7. It is informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the plaintiff has entered the witness box and has filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. It is at that stage that the petitioners were set ex-parte. In the light of the decree being set aside, the trial Court shall expedite disposal of the suit and the petitioners shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit on merits and in accordance with law. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit by 31.01.2027. Needless to state, the defence of oral partition has to be established by the petitioners in the trial.
8. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 03-09-2026 NSL To The Principal District Court at Ariyalur.
CRP No. 6171 of 2025
P.B.BALAJI, J. NSL CRP No. 6171 of 2025 03-09-2026