CRP/3086/2026 of Janarthanan Vs Balammal on 20 August 2026

ORDER

This criminal revision petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 19.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.166 of 2019 on the file of the Special Sub Court, LAOP Cases, Arrakonam, Ranipet District.

CRP.No.3086 of 2026

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.166 of 2019 and pending the said suit for partition at the trial stage, the revision petitioners, despite cross-examining P.W.1, did not come forward to offer any evidence, oral or documentary. The evidence on the side of the revision petitioners has been closed by the Special Sub Court, Arrakonam and the matter was posted for arguments. Thereafter, the suit has been decreed in favour of the respondent.

4. Contending it to be an exparte decree, the petitioners took out an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 448 days in filing a petition seeking to set aside the exparte decree.

5. The respondent filed a counter stating that it was not an exparte decree, but a decree on merits and in any event, the reasons assigned by the petitioners are invented for the purpose of explaining the inordinate delay. The Trial court, finding that the decree was passed on merits and not an exparte decree, dismissed the said condone delay application.

CRP.No.3086 of 2026

6. No doubt, the trial court also went into whether sufficient cause was made out or not and ultimately found that no sufficient cause has been shown. Challenging the said order dismissing the application in I.A.No.2 of 2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the present revision has been filed.

7. On going through the impugned order, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, though the trial court has only recorded that the petitioners did not participate in the proceedings after cross-examining P.W.1, there is no specific order setting the petitioners exparte. However, the petitioners have been agitating the matter as if it is an exparte decree, which necessitated filing of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also an application to set aside the exparte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.

8. Admittedly, from the records, I am able to see that the suit was dismissed on merits considering the pleadings and evidences already available on record.

9. In such view of the matter, the petitioners ought to have preferred a first appeal under Section 96 of CPC and not sought to set aside the decree passed in O.S.No.166 of 2019 as if it was an exparte decree. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.

CRP.No.3086 of 2026

10. However, considering the fact that the petitioners have invoked the wrong provisions of law and have been agitating the matter in a bonafide manner, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioners, even though the revision is being dismissed.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, in the event of petitioners filing a first appeal challenging the decree passed in O.S.No.166 of 2019 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the said appeal shall be taken on file without putting the limitation against the petitioners/defendants and the said appeal shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, in any event within a period of four months thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No skt To: The Special Sub Court LAOP Cases, Arrakonam, Ranipet District.

CRP.No.3086 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI, J. skt CRP.No.3086 of 2026 and CMP.No.13291 of 2026 20.08.2026