CRP/3161/2023 of K.Ravi Vs Palanivel on 12 August 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revision petitions, and Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, learned counsel for the contesting respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 in both the revision petitions.

2. It is an admitted case of both parties that an ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 13.08.2003, and subsequently, an ex parte final decree was passed on 10.03.2008. The revision petitioners have filed four applications; two for condoning the delay in filing the applications to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree and final decree respectively and two applications to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree and final decree. While the delay condonation applications were pending, the petitioners filed two amendment applications to amend Paragraph 4 of the affidavits filed in support of the condone delay applications, by replacing the reference to partition deed dated 04.10.1967 with a sale deed dated 09.07.1957.

3. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the revision petitions, would state that admittedly both the partition deed

C.R.P.Nos.3161 & 3164 of 2023 dated 04.10.1967 and the sale deed dated 09.07.1957 are registered instruments. By inadvertence, the reliance placed on the partition deed dated 04.10.1967 was wrongly incorporated in Paragraph 4 of the affidavit in the place of the sale deed dated 09.07.1957. He would further state that absolutely no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/plaintiffs if the amendment is ordered, since the documents are registered; however, on the other hand, if the amendment is not ordered, the Trial Court should not take reference to the admission of the petitioners to the partition deed dated 04.10.1967 and hold it as a reason for dismissing the condone delay application.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 628.

5. Per contra, Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs, would state that this Court has already allowed the restoration of the condone delay applications, which were dismissed for non- prosecution, on the concession shown by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs; it was subsequent to the order dated 16.12.2025 that

C.R.P.Nos.3161 & 3164 of 2023 the applications came to be inquired into, and this Court, in the earlier order dated 16.12.2025, had also directed the applications to be decided within a period of four weeks. It is therefore the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that the petitioners are only attempting to drag the proceedings, and having specifically made an averment referring to the partition deed, which is also relied upon by the respondents/plaintiffs, it is not open to the petitioners to now withdraw the admission made in Paragraph 4 of the affidavit.

6. In support of his submission, Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Goyal alias Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615, at Paragraph 11.2, for the proposition that in applications under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a party by that amendment cannot withdraw an admission already made.

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

C.R.P.Nos.3161 & 3164 of 2023

8. Admittedly, the petitioners have now made an attempt to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree as well as the final decree. However, considering that there has been a delay in filing the said applications, two separate condone delay applications have been filed. Today, both applications are being inquired into by the Trial Court, which passed the preliminary decree for partition and subsequently the final decree on 10.03.2008.

9. In the averments set out in the affidavit in support of the condone delay application at Paragraph No.4, the petitioners now contend that instead of referring to the sale deed dated 09.07.1957 under which their father Kannappa Chettiar had purchased the property, by mistake, reference has been made to the partition deed dated 04.10.1967, which is a document under which the respondents/plaintiffs rely upon.

10. According to Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, it is only an inadvertent error, and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/plaintiffs, since the documents are registered documents and the Trial Court can always look into the documents, if a necessity arises.

11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has relied on the

C.R.P.Nos.3161 & 3164 of 2023 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Varun Pahwa’ case, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that inadvertent procedural mistakes by the advocate in describing the parties in the cause title or suit or memo of parties are permissible.

12. I do not see how this decision will apply, since it is not a description of property but an admission with regard to a document.

13. In any event, Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, fairly concedes the position that when the affidavit has already been filed, and an attempt to amend the same is also being made, pointing out that it was an inadvertent mistake, the admission can always be taken advantage of, in the event of the applications to condone delay and set aside being allowed. At the same time, it is his apprehension that the Trial Court should not put the mistake against the petitioners and hold that the petitioners are admitting to the partition deed, on which the respondents are alone placing reliance, and therefore find no necessity to condone the delay or set aside the ex parte preliminary decree and final decree.

14. In the light of the above, considering that the Court is now only

C.R.P.Nos.3161 & 3164 of 2023 concerned with whether sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioners for the condonation of delay in filing the applications to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree and final decree, I do not see any real prejudice being caused to the petitioners, by the dismissal of the amendment applications.

15. However, it is recorded that the petitioners brought to the notice of the Court, even prior to the decision of the Section 5 applications, that there was an inadvertent misdescription of the document at Paragraph 4 by referring to a partition deed dated 04.10.1967 instead of a sale date dated 09.07.1957, which stands in the name of the father of the petitioners, Kannappa Chettiar.

16. In the light of the above, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-

i) Considering that this Court has already directed the condone delay applications to be decided within a period of four weeks, even as early as in December 2025, the condone delay applications shall be enquired into and decided on the basis of the averments set out with regard to sufficient cause and reasons for non-appearance and non-filing of the applications in time

C.R.P.Nos.3161 & 3164 of 2023 alone, without any reference to the misdescription of the document at Paragraph 4.

ii) In the event of the Trial Court finding sufficient cause being made out by the petitioners and reopening the trial in the partition suit, the admission made by the present petitioners in the affidavit at Paragraph 4 shall be taken advantage of by the respondents, and it shall, of course, be open to the petitioners to explain the admission. Reserving right of both parties, this Court directs the condone delay applications to be decided on or before 30.09.2026. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 12.08.2026 raja Neutral Citation : Yes / No To The Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.

C.R.P.Nos.3161 & 3164 of 2023

C.R.P.Nos.3161 & 3164 of 2023 P.B.BALAJI

, J.

raja C.R.P.Nos.3161 & 3164 of 2023 12.08.2026