Petitioner challenged dismissal of his application to condone 2645 days' delay in seeking to set aside an ex-parte partition decree, blaming his advocate and claiming the plaintiff promised to withdraw the suit. The High Court found no satisfactory explanation and dismissed the revision petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.No.2956 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.15815 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 04.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.2956 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.15815 of 2024
Rasu
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Vijayakumari
2.Ramanitham
3.Gnanasundari
.. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order as made in I.A.No.100 of 2020 in O.S.No.22 of 2012, dated 18.11.2022, on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Court, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balamurugan For R1 : Mr.D.Baskar For R2 & R3 : No Appearance
1/7
ORDER
C.R.P.No.2956 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.15815 of 2024
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order as made in I.A.No.100 of 2020 in O.S.No.22 of 2012, dated 18.11.2022, on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Court, Cuddalore.
2.The case of the petitioner/1st defendant is that the suit was originally filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff, who is the sister of the petitioner, claiming partition. The petitioner entered appearance in the said suit. However, he has not filed the written statement and thus, the ex-parte decree was passed on 07.11.2012. Thereafter, the application has been filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 2645 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree on the ground that the Senior Advocate did not inform the petitioner about the filing of the written statement. Further, the 1st respondent approached and informed the petitioner that she would withdraw the suit and demanded three sovereigns of gold jewelery. The petitioner gave three sovereigns of gold to the 1st respondent and was under
2/7
C.R.P.No.2956 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.15815 of 2024
the impression that the 1st respondent would have withdrawn the suit. However, the Court below has dismissed the said condone delay application. Aggrieved over the same, the present petition has been filed.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not aware that written statement has to be filed since the Senior Advocate engaged by him has not properly guided him in respect of the same. Further, the 1st respondent assured the petitioner that she would withdraw the suit by demanding three sovereigns of gold jewelery. Therefore, the petitioner was under the impression that the suit might have been withdrawn. Therefore, the delay was neither wilful nor wanton and hence, he prayed to set aside the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.100 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Court, Cuddalore.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner was well aware of the suit proceedings. Though he entered appearance in the suit, he failed to file the written statement and therefore, 3/7
C.R.P.No.2956 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.15815 of 2024
6.Upon hearing, this Court is of the view that for rendering substantial justice liberal approach has to be given while condoning the delay. At the outset, satisfactory explanation has to be given by the parties for the condonation of the delay. In the present case, the petitioner entered appearance in the suit filed by his own sister and he was well aware of the proceedings. After many years of passing the decree, he cannot approach the Court to set aside the ex-parte decree with the flimsy reasons without any satisfactory explanation. The reasons given by the petitioner for the delay does not have any factual background. The petitioner must be vigilant in following the case and he cannot just sleep over the matter and
4/7
C.R.P.No.2956 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.15815 of 2024
blame the Advocate after several years.
7.In view of the above, this Court does not find any merits in the Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
04.11.2024
rst Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order To:
The I Additional District & Sessions Court, Cuddalore.
5/7
C.R.P.No.2956 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.15815 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rst
C.R.P.No.2956 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.15815 of 2024
6/7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 2645 days in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte partition decree should be condoned.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rasu
Vijayakumari
Ramanitham
Gnanasundari
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
