CRP/4048/2026 of P.Mangalam Vs Gowri on 14 August 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.D.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.N.Nithianandam, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

2. The petitioners are the defendants 1, 3, & 5 in a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The suit came to be decreed ex- parte on 12.02.2018. The petitioners claim that they had no knowledge of the ex-parte decree and came up with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 2085 days. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court, finding that no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioners. It is as against the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. Mr.D.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner firstly contended that the defendant suffered a major accident in respect of which he has also entered the witness box and spoken about the accident, besides marking a true copy of the FIR as Ex.P1. He would further state that subsequently covid pandemic also intervened and therefore the delay occasioned. The learned counsel also states that substantial rights of the petitioners are at stake, and hence a fair opportunity may be given to them to defend the suit on merits. The learned counsel also relied on the medical certificate, which is now annexed to the typed set of papers in the revision, though not filed before the trial Court.

4. Per contra, Mr.N.Nithianandam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would contend that the petitioners are three in number and reasons are assigned only in respect of the fourth petitioner Netharaj and therefore stated nothing prevented the other defendants to have been diligent and come up with the application within the provided thirty day period, seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree. Even insofar as reliance being placed on the medical certificate, he would firstly contend that having not filed any medical evidence before the trial court, it is not open to the petitioners to now produce evidence at the revisional stage, since this Court is only testing the correctness of the order passed by the trial Court. In any event, it is his submission that the medical certificate is of recent origin and does not in any manner substantiate the averments with regard to the fourth petitioner having suffered a serious head injury.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on either side.

6. As rightly pointed out by Mr.N.Nithianandam, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, the reasons have been assigned only in respect of the fourth petitioner, one Netharaj. There is no reason as to why the other petitioners were not in a position to follow up the suit and prosecute the same diligently. Even insofar as the fourth petitioner is concerned, excepting a true copy of the FIR filed, no other documents have been exhibited, much less medical evidence to substantiate the averments in the affidavit that the petitioner met with an accident and suffered head injuries and he had memory loss and he did not even remember about the pendency of the case. Even the document that has been filed presently in the revision, though not admissible, even if it can be looked into to see whether any discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioners, I am able to find that the said report only indicates that the 4th petitioner is suffering from heart ailments. In the said report, in fact, other parametres are normal. In any event, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings arrived at by the trial Court, warranting interference in revision. The petitioners have not been able to show sufficient cause entitling them to discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed, if any. 14-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DPQ

P.B.BALAJI, J. DPQ To The Principal District Munsif Court, Madurantakam, CRP No. 4048 of 2026 14-08-2026