Madras High Court
CRP/5795/2026 of A.C. DHANAPAL Vs KANNAN @ RAMAMOORTHY on 1 September 2026
CRP No.5795 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No.5795 of 2026
1. A.C.Dhanapal
2. V.Mariappan
3. C.Selvam @ Selvakumar
4. A.Raju
5. P.Palanimalai
… Petitioners
Vs.
1. kannan @ Ramamoorthy
2. Singaram
3. Arun prasath
4. Raghunath
.. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the fair and final orders dated 15.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.104 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Salem and allow the civil revision petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.D.Jeevitha
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar for R2 to R4
R1- Not ready
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 01:35:33 pm )
CRP No.5795 of 2026
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 final orders dated 15.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.104 of 2014 by the I Additional District Judge, Salem.
2. Heard Mr. learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.
3. The revision petitioners herein/ plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.104 of 2014 for specific performance of an agreement of sale and the suit was admittedly dismissed for default on 30.08.2017. The petitioners had filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2019, seeking condonation of the delay of 632 days in fling a petition to restore the suit to file. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 15.02.2022, finding that the explanation offered by the petitioners for condonation of the delay was false and unsatisfactory and that even in the said application for restoration of the suit, the petitioners did not diligently prosecuted the application. Challenging the above said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 01:35:33 pm )
CRP No.5795 of 2026
4. Ms.D.Jeevitha, learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the petitioners had paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of entering into an agreement of sale in the year 2011 in respect of the property, which was proposed to be purchased by the petitioners. Admittedly, the agreed sale consideration was Rs.18,00,000/- and the parties had contemplated to complete the transaction within a period 11 months. Complaining of the defendants being evasive, the suit for specific performance was filed and though the suit was dismissed for default, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for not being able to file the application for restoration of the suit in time. She would further contend that the Trial Court should have adopted a more liberal approach, especially, when the petitioners had cited medical illness as a ground for delay.
5. Per contra, Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 would state that the delay 632 days was unsubstantiated and even the condone delay application was not argued by the petitioners, despite sufficient opportunities being granted to them. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 would also point out that, despite non appearance of the petitioners, the court independently found that the reasons assigned for the delay are false and unsatisfactory. He would therefore pray for the dismissal of the revision petition.
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 01:35:33 pm )
CRP No.5795 of 2026
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
7. The plaintiffs are five in number. Though the suit was dismissed for default on 30.08.2017, an application was taken out by the 1st plaintiff contending that he was affected by Jaundice in the first week of August 2017 for which, he was taking treatment from a country doctor at Thiruvannamalai, staying at his relatives’ house. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they could not prosecute the suit diligently. There is absolutely no reason as to why the remaining four petitioners were also incapacitated from following up the matter and appearing in the court, which could have avoided dismissal of the suit for non prosecution. Further, though the first plaintiff states that he recovered from Jaundice by the second week of February 2018, he could not file the application immediately thereafter, because of his personal problems and critical situations in the family. There is no acceptable explanations for the delay beyond the second week of February 2018 until the application being filed in April 2019. The petitioners have also not chosen to enter the witness box to lead evidence to show sufficient cause. Further, even the application for condonation of delay itself, as rightly observed by the trial Court, was not diligently prosecuted by the petitioners. Therefore, I do not see any error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the condone delay application, warranting interference in this civil revision petition.
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 01:35:33 pm )
CRP No.5795 of 2026
8. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 01-09-2026 (2/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The I Additional District Judge, Salem.
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 01:35:33 pm )
CRP No.5795 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI, J. MST CRP No.5795 of 2026 01-09-2026 (2/2)
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 01:35:33 pm )