CRP/5376/2025 of S.Irusappan Alias Senthil Vs B.Ganesan on 11 August 2026

ORDER

The respondent despite service of notice has neither chosen to appear in person nor through Counsel. I have proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr.C.Prabakaran.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that it was only on the assurance of the respondent/plaintiff that he would withdraw the suit since settlement has been reached, the petitioner did not follow up the matter and he was under bonafide impression that the suit should be withdrawn. It is also the

CRP No.5376 of 2025

further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has moved to Karnataka for employment and he was suffering from ill health and his mother's health seriously deteriorated and hence, the petitioner was unable to appear and contest the suit.

3. The learned counsel further states that witnesses were also examined on the side of the revision petitioner viz., the petitioner himself and independent person by name, Ganesan as P.W.2 who also affirmed the reasons set out in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application. The learned counsel would further state that the parties are closely related and an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits especially, since the valuable rights of the revision petitioner in immovable property in the subject matter of the suit.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The petitioner admittedly on receipt of the suit summons did not chose to appear and suffered an exparte decree. The application was taken out under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 2156 days. In the said affidavit, the petitioner has stated that he was suffering from pain in the hand and knee and he was therefore not in a position to attend the proceedings. That apart, he has also stated that his mother was also suffering from ill health and hence, he had to take care of her as well. Despite examining himself as P.W.1 and one Ganesan as P.W.2, not a shred of documentary evidence has

CRP No.5376 of 2025

been filed to establish either factum of the petitioner moving to Karnataka for employment or with regard to the self serving averments pertaining to the incapacity and ill health of the petitioner and his mother. In fact, while being cross examined the petitioner has stated that he suffered from jaundice, for which, he took country medicine. The Trial Court found that such a reason not even mentioned in the affidavit in support of the condone delay application. The Trial Court has rightly found that the petitioner does not qualify to exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in his favour, I am unable to see any illegality or perversity in the findings arrived at by the Trial Court, warranting interference in this revision.

6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

No

costs. 11-08-2026 RKP Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vikravandi, Villupuram District.

CRP No.5376 of 2025

P.B.BALAJI, J., rkp CRP No.5376 of 2025 AND CMP NO.27053 of 2025 11.08.2026