Madras High Court

CRP/3755/2026 of Vasanthi Vs Gnanasekaran on 12 August 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

CRP No.3755 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-08-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CRP No.3755 of 2026

Mrs.Vasanthi

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.Gnanasekaran

2.Anbhazhagan

3. The Tahsildar,

Tahsildar Office,

Jayankondam.

4.The State,

Represented by the Collector,

Ariyalur District.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order dated 18.06.2024 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.74 of 2007 by the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja

For Respondent(s):

No Appearance for R1

Mr.C.A.Anburaj for R2

Mr.P.Sunil,

Government Advocate for R3 and R4

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

ORDER

The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the dismissal of I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.74 f 2007, on the file of the District Munsif, Jayankondam.

CRP No.3755 of 2026

2. I have heard Mr.Sesubalan Rajan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. Mr.C.A. Anburaj, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the revision are as follows: The revision petitioner, as plaintiff, filed O.S. No.74 of 2007, for declaration and injunction pertaining to the suit property. The defendants in the suit appeared and had also filed a written statement. The suit was however dismissed for non prosecution on 13.12.2012. An Application to restore the suit was filed without any delay, on 21.12.2012. However, it appears that the original application was mis-placed and after change of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he came to know from the case bundle that the petition to restore the suit that was filed on 21.12.2012 and it was returned on 08.01.2013 and again on 21.01.2013, the same was re-presented in time on 19.02.2013. Thereafter, the petition was neither numbered nor returned. At the instance of the petitioner, a memo was filed and steps were taken to trace the restoration petition and it is seen from the endorsement made by the Trial Court that the restoration petition was mistakenly placed in the bundle itself, instead of being returned. The Court permitted return of the petition to the Advocate concerned. Only on 28.06.2022 and on getting return of the petition, the petitioner re- presented the petition on 08.08.2022. It was once again returned stating that the

CRP No.3755 of 2026

petitioner has to take out an Application seeking condonation of delay in representing the petition.

4. Though the petitioner re-presented the application stating that there is no delay on his part, the petition was once again returned on 18.08.2022, for the very same reason. The return was once again re-presented on 10.10.2022. In order to get over the deadlock, the petitioner has moved this Court in CRP. No.4192 of 2021, to direct the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam to take up the restoration petition without insisting on a condone delay application. The revision was disposed of on 20.12.2022. This Court directed that since there is a delay of nine years, the person responsible for the delay has to be found out by conducting appropriate enquiry and liberty was given to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court to take out a suitable application. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. No.1 of 2023, seeking condonation of delay of 3698 days, in the light of the directions issued by this Court on 20.12.2022. However, the said application has been dismissed as against which, the present revision petition has been filed.

5. Mr.Sesubalan Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner would firstly contend that the Application to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default on 13.12.2012 was filed within eight days from the date of dismissal of the suit viz., on 21.12.2012. Subsequently, the petition was returned and also misplaced

CRP No.3755 of 2026

after being re-presented on 19.02.2013. It is seen from the records that the Registry has once again returned the Application on 22.02.2013. But, however by inadvertence, the petition was not returned to the learned counsel but kept in the bundle itself. This factum came to light only after the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Trial Court filed a memo and by order dated 28.06.2022 alone, the Trial Court permitted the Original Application to be returned to the learned counsel. Thus, as rightly pointed out by Mr.Sesu Balan Raja, learned counsel for the respondent, I do not see any deliberate delay or omission on the part of the revision petitioner. The Application to restore the suit that came to be dismissed for default was filed within the period of limitation, in fact, within eight days from the date of dismissal of the suit. Thereafter, it is only a delay in re-presenting the papers which too, became necessitated on account of the order passed by this Court in CRP. No.4192 of 2022, which again was only with an object to conduct an enquiry to find out the person who are said fault in the Registry.

6. In view of the said directions, the petitioner was compelled to take out a fresh application seeking condonation of delay by which time, the delay had swollen to 3698 days. The delay is not because of the revision petitioner, but only because of the fact that despite the Court returning the Application on 22.02.2013, it was actually not returned, but kept in the suit bundle itself. For the fault of the Court and the Registry, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.

CRP No.3755 of 2026

7. Further, the Application in I.A. No.1 of 2023 was filed only pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.4192 of 2022, which was only in order to fix responsibilities/liabilities on the person who was said fault. Admittedly, the petitioner cannot be found fault with, in view of the above narrated circumstances.

8. In the light of the above, I am inclined to allow the revision by setting aside the order in I.A. No.1 of 2022 and consequently, suit in O.S. No.74 of 2007 is restored to file. Liberty is given to the respondent/defendant to contest the suit on merits and considering that sufficient time has already been lost in all these years. I am inclined to direct the Trial Court, viz., the District Munsif Court, Janaykondam, to dispose of O.S. No.74 of 2007 within a period of nine

(9) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

9. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 12-08-2026 RKP Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No To The District Munsif Court, Jayankondam

CRP No.3755 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI, J., rkp CRP No.3755 of 2026 12.08.2026

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead