CRP/4249/2026 of S.Vanivalavan Vs Sivaranjani on 20 August 2026

ORDER

The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the dismissal of an application filed by them, seeking to condone the delay of 3272 days in filing the petition to restore the suit to file.

2. I have heard Mr.C.Dharani, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the suit was filed by the wife and children of one Dhandapani, whose whereabouts have been not known for more than the statutory period of seven years. He would further state that even as early as in 1988, a complaint was lodged and FIR was also registered in Crime No.187 of 1988 by the Station House Officer, Komarapalayam Police Station. He would further state that subsequently a certificate was also issued by the said authority on 25.08.2007, stating that the whereabouts of the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd plaintiff could not be traced.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the suit came to be filed, seeking a declaration under Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act to enable the petitioners to get legal heirship certificate to deal with the property of said Dhandapani. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the Court ought to have adopted a liberal approach and condoned the delay, in order to do substantial justice to the parties. He would further state that the Trial Court has adopted a pedantic approach and non suited the petitioners, on the ground of delay, without noticing that no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the suit was restored to file and disposed of on merits.

5. Per contra, Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate for the respondents would state that the petitioners have not substantiated the inordinate delay of 3272 days and the reasons assigned by the petitioners have been rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court, by a well considered order and therefore, no interference is warranted in revision.

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

7. In the Section 5 application, the Trial Court was concerned with only the sufficiency of the reasons assigned for not filing the application to restore the suit and whether the delay has been satisfactorily explained. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that though the suit was posted for trial on 04.01.2013, since the 2nd petitioner did not appear, the suit had been dismissed for default. The reasons for non appearance stated are that the mother of the 1st petitioner was bedridden and the sister of the 1st petitioner who was taking care of the mother was affected by Cancer and she was not even able to walk and that both of them were bedridden and it was the 1st petitioner who had to take care of them by shifting to Mangalapalayam, Tharapuram.

8. It is further contended that the 2nd petitioner stopped talking with the 1st petitioner, due to family disputes and did not inform the 1st petitioner about the details of the progress of the suit. Further, according to the petitioners, the mother of the 1st petitioner died on 12.12.2012 and yet she had to stay on to take care of her ailing sister. It is therefore her contention that the petition could not be filed in time.

9. A further reason assigned is that the 1st petitioner fell down and fractured her hip bone and was treated for two years at Salem Manipal Hospital and in the interregnum period, the sister of the 1st petitioner also died on 02.08.2017. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner was undergoing treatment at Salem Dharan Hospital for a disease in her food pipe and she was not even in a position to meet her expenses for medical treatment. She came to know about the dismissal of the suit only after the Government officials asked her about the whereabouts of her husband and when she contacted her counsel on 26.12.2021 and came to know that the case had been dismissed on 04.01.2013. The 1st petitioner has further stated that she had forgotten about the suit, since she was under the impression that her son, the 2nd petitioner would have pursued the same and therefore, there is no negligence or carelessness on the part of the 1st petitioner.

10. The Trial Court found that to substantiate the illness, fracture and subsequent treatment, no document was exhibited on the side of the petitioners. The Trial Court also found inconsistencies in the affidavit, pointing out to certain dates, which did not appear to be logical. Ultimately, the application was dismissed finding that the delay has not been substantiated to the satisfaction of the Court. The Trial Court has rightly held that the petitioners have not shown any cause, much less, sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of close to nine years, namely 3272 days in seeking restoration of the suit.

11. Though it is feebly set out in the affidavit that the 1st petitioner was not in talking terms with her son, the application has been filed by the 1st petitioner along with her son alone. Therefore, I am at wit’s end as to how the 1st petitioner can even justify the averments set out in the affidavit, as if the son was pursuing the litigation and she was under the impression that he would be diligently following up the matter. Despite the application being filed by the mother and son, there is no whisper about why the son did not follow up the matter for nearly nine years. The petitioners have also not adduced any oral evidence, much less, documentary evidence to substantiate the reasons assigned in support of the application for condonation of delay. In such circumstances, I do not see any merit in the revision, warranting interference of the well considered order of the Trial Court.

12. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 20.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To

1. The District Collector, District Collector Office, Namakkal, Namakkal District.

2. The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

3. The Village Administrative Officer, VAO Office, Komarapalayam Agraharam Village, Komarapalayam, Namakkal District.

4. The District Munsif Court, Komarapalayam.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.4149 of 2026 20.08.2026