CRP/6749/2026 of Suresh Kumar Vs Sathish Kumar on 27 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 4605 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree passed against him.

2. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title in O.S.No.150 of 2007. In the said suit, the petitioner was arrayed as a sole defendant. Due to non appearance of the petitioner, an exparte decree was passed against him on 19.12.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree along with a petition to condone the delay of 4606 days in filing set aside petition. These applications were filed on 02.08.2025. The Trial Court dismissed the condone delay petition and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father was admitted in KMCH Hospital, Coimbatore in the year 2000 and underwent treatment for several years and he died on 19.12.2012. Due to the shock caused by his father’s death, the petitioner could not attend his day-to-day activities and hence there was a delay in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree passed against him. It is further stated by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that the respondent claims rights over the suit property under the settlement deed executed by petitioner’s mother Subbathal, dated 17.03.2003. However, subsequently, the settlement deed was cancelled on 27.03.2003 by Subbathal and she also executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on the very same day. In view of the same, an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits.

4. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and exparte decree was passed against the petitioner/defendant on 19.12.2012. Instant application to set aside the exparte decree along with an application to condone the delay were filed only in the year 2025. The reasons given by the petitioner as if his father was hospitalised and he shifted to Tiruppur near to KMCH Hospital etc. are not sufficient to explain the inordinate delay of 4605 days. Though in the affidavit, the petitioner referred about the medical records, no document has been marked before the Trial Court. Further, the petitioner has not entered the box to give evidence, explaining the delay, in support of the averments made in the affidavit. The reason given by the petitioner regarding illness of his father is not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 4605 days.

5. Even on merits, the petitioner claimed that the settlement deed executed by Subbathal in favour of the respondent was subsequently cancelled.

It is settled law that the unilateral cancellation of a settlement is invalid and the same has to be ignored. It is also stated that by the petitioner that the settlement deed executed in favour of the respondent was obtained by undue influence. Till date, the petitioner has not taken any steps to challenge the settlement deed executed by Subbathal in favour of the respondent. In such circumstances, the challenge to the settlement deed executed in favour of the respondent is hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the matter are also not appealable to this court. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The District Munsif, Pollachi.

S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 6749 of 2026 27-10-2026