Dismissed

Mahalingam v. Amaravathi

Madras HC17 Dec 2024CRP/4941/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the District Judge's order refusing to condone a 3402-day delay in setting aside an ex-parte decree in a partition suit. The court found no sufficient cause for the delay, noting unexplained inactivity for six years and death of the primary litigant, and refused to condone the delay merely on the basis of familial relations.

What did the court decide?

null

Mahalingam Vs Amaravathi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.4941 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.4941 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.27831 of 2024

1.Mahalingam

2.Ponnusamy

3.Mariyappan

4.Govindammal .. Petitioners

Vs.

Amaravathi

.. Respondent

Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.03 of 2024 in O.S.No.51 of 2012 dated 24.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri and thereby allow the Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan

¶16

1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

C.R.P.(PD).No.4941 of 2024

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This civil revision petition arises against the order of the learned

¶21

Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.51 of 2012, dated 24.09.2024.

¶22

2.O.S.No.51 of 2012 is a suit for partition and separate possession

¶23

launched by the daughter against her father, mother and siblings.

¶24

3.Opportunity was granted to the defendants to file a written statement.

¶25

They did not file any written statement. The Court was left with no other

¶26

option than to proceed exparte . Finally, it decreed the suit on 06.09.2014.

¶27

4.Nothing was done by the defendants from 06.09.2014 till 29.01.2024. On that day, they have filed an application to condone the delay

¶28

of 3402 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree passed on 06.09.2014. The reason given for setting aside the exparte decree is that the deceased 1^st defendant was taking care of the litigation and he was

¶29

2/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

C.R.P.(PD).No.4941 of 2024

¶32

affected with Chickungunya and other ailments, the defendants could not file a written statement. They pleaded that the 1^st defendant passed away subsequently. The defendants to 3 to 6 came to know about the partition suit

¶33

only when the final decree application in I.A.No.2 of 2023 was served on them. After receipt of the counter, the learned District Judge dismissed the application. Hence, this revision.

¶34

5.I heard Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan for the civil revision petitioners.

¶35

6.Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan states that the schedule mentioned properties 1

¶36

to 43 are available for partition, whereas, the properties in Item Nos.44 to 48 are the self acquisitions of their parents and hence, it is not open for partition. He further points out that the father was suffering from various ailments and hence, he was not in a position to file a written statement. Hence, he pleads that the delay may be condoned and defendants 3 to 6 be given an opportunity to contest the suit.

¶37

7.I have carefully considered the arguments of Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan.

¶38

3/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

C.R.P.(PD).No.4941 of 2024

¶41

8.Length of delay does not matter while considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The facts pleaded to condone the delay should be sufficient. The reason pleaded for condonation of delay is that the 1^st defendant was suffering from chickungunya in the year 2014. He passed away in the year 2020. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the 1^st defendant did not take any steps for a period of six years. Apart from that, it is not in dispute the 1^st defendant passed away on 31.03.2020. As to what the defendants 3 to 6 were doing from March, 2020 till January, 2024 has also not been explained.

¶42

9.When there is no explanation for the delay, the Court cannot exercise the power to condone the delay for the mere fact that the parties are relatives. Though the defendants 3 to 6 have pleaded that there was a family panchayat to settle the issue, absolutely no evidence has been submitted before the learned Trial Judge to substantiate the plea. Condonation of delay is not for the asking. There should be sufficient cause. Sufficient cause is sine qua non , in order for a Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 5 of the

¶43

4/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

C.R.P.(PD).No.4941 of 2024

¶46

Limitation Act. When I do not find any sufficient cause, I am not in a position to rescue Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan's client.

¶47

10.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶48

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶49

17.12.2024

¶50

krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶51

¶52

The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.

¶53

5/6

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

C.R.P.(PD).No.4941 of 2024

¶56

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶57

krk

¶58

C.R.P.(PD).No.4941 of 2024

¶59

17.12.2024

¶60

6/6

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mahalingam v. Amaravathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahalingam v. Amaravathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Vs M.Jayachandran(Died), 1.J.SARAYANYA

Jagan Mohan Vs Jagannathan

Ajeesh Kumar S Vs Shilaja T R

S.Sathyashree Vs Mamata Laddha

Baskar Vs Aruna Devi

Thahira Begum Anwar Vs Waseem Mohammed