REV.APPL/253/2026 of Saraswathi Vs P.Manikam on 13 November 2026

ORDER

REV.APPL No. 253 of 2026 The review application has been filed to review the order passed by me in C.M.P.No.16079 of 2025 on 12.01.2026.

2. I have heard Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant and Mr. M. Akash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel, would invite my attention to the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application seeking to condone the delay of 1749 days in preferring the revision petition and would contend that I had, in my order, inadvertently referred to the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree before the Trial Court and put the conduct of the revision petitioners in the said application against the revision petitioners and proceeded to dismiss the condone delay application in preferring the revision petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel specifically drew my attention to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application, where the petitioners have stated that they are simple individuals, with no legal background and that the mother is an illiterate widow and the deponent of the affidavit is a layman, unfamiliar with the intricacies of legal proceedings and therefore, they were entirely dependent on the expertise and guidance of their counsel, who had unfortunately failed them, when it was most needed. It is also

REV.APPL No. 253 of 2026 stated in the said affidavit that the petitioners should not be punished for the misdeeds of the lawyers. Insofar as the averments in paragraph 9, they touch on the merits of the suit claim itself, alleging that the value of the suit property was over Rs.10 lakhs and the agreement for sale was shown as a paltry sum of Rs.95,000/-, which raises serious suspicion of fraud and misrepresentation. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, states that the mere fact, that the petitioners had admitted to having come to know about the ex parte decree in the year 2015, cannot be put against them in an application to condone delay in preferring the revision, which was challenging the subsequent order dismissing the condone delay application filed to set aside the ex parte decree in the suit.

5. Per contra, Mr. M. Akash, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by way of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. Learned counsel also contended that none of the grounds available for reviewing the order have been made out, as contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. He would further state that the petitioners were even aware of the decree being passed ex parte in the year 2014 itself and therefore, it is incorrect to contend that they came to know of the ex parte decree only in the year 2015. He would also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitin Mahadew Jawale & others v. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke, reported in 2024 INSC 902, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed dissatisfaction over the growing tendency on the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the

REV.APPL No. 253 of 2026 head of the advocate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that even if the advocates are careless or negligent, that itself would not be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the Court, initiated at his instance.

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

7. While disposing of the CMP, I specifically held at paragraph 8 that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that they were misled by the erstwhile counsel and that the counsel on record had made corrections in the date of the affidavit sworn in the year 2015 behind their back. It pertains only to the application in I.A.No.222 of 2017, filed for condonation of delay in setting aside the ex parte decree before the Trial Court and that the same does not in any way substantiate the delay of 1749 days in preferring the present revision petition. Merely because in a subsequent paragraph I have referred to the conduct of the petitioners that they were even aware of the ex parte decree in the year 2015 and that they have not taken necessary steps, I have independently held and observed that there is not a single reason explaining the delay in preferring the revision petition, that too with an inordinate delay of 1749 days. At paragraph 10, I have further stated that even if it is an admitted position that the first petitioner is a widow and aged 66 years, nothing prevented the second petitioner, her son, to pursue the matter and

REV.APPL No. 253 of 2026 challenge the order in I.A.No.222 of 2017 in time. Therefore, from the order passed by me, it is clear that I was conscious of the fact that I was dealing only with the application to condone the delay in preferring the revision petition and I was not swayed by the conduct of the petitioners, at the time of preferring the application before the Trial Court while seeking to set aside the ex parte decree that too with a huge delay of 887 days, which has only been incidentally referred to in the order. Hence, I am unable to see any error apparent on the face of the order, requiring me to entertain this review application.

8. In the light of the above, there is no merit in the review application and therefore, the review application stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected CMP stands closed. 13-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No kj

REV.APPL No. 253 of 2026 P.B.BALAJI, J. KJ Pre-delivery order in REV.APPL No. 253 of 2026 and CMP.No.27439 of 2026 13-11-2026