Legal heirs of the ex parte first defendant sought condonation of 2399 days' delay in setting aside a decree in a declaration and injunction suit, citing their father's illness. The High Court found no evidence of illness and upheld dismissal.
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(MD)No.190 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)No.190 of 2020
Mahalingam (Died)
2.Santhanamari
3.Ramalakshmi ... Petitioner / Proposed 3 to 5 respondents
Vs
1.Rajasekar
2.Rajkumar
3.Rathinavel 4.Ayyanraj ... Respondents / Plaintiffs
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.288 of 2018 in O.S.No.15 of 2008 dated 12.11.2019 on the file of Subordinate Court, Muthukulathur.
1/6
C.R.P(MD)No.190 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.Raja.Karthikeyan For R1 to R3 : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan For R4 : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.288 of 2018 in O.S.No.15 of 2008 dated 12.11.2019 on the file of Subordinate Court, Muthukulathur.
C.R.P(MD)No.190 of 2020
and for condoning the delay of 2399 days under Section 5 of the limitation Act, stating that Mahalingam was sick for about 2 years, he was bedridden and died on 08.11.2010. On 05.06.2015, while the petitioners cut the standing trees, the respondents herein prevented them. So they lodged a complaint before the Kadaladi Police Station. During the enquiry, the respondents informed them that a suit was decreed in their favour against the petitioner's father. On further enquiry, it came to know that an advocate namely Ansari who is appearing for the father of the petitioner's herein, went to Chennai after discontinuing the practice and thereafter only they came to know about the ex parte order, decree, judgment etc. So there is a delay of 2399 days in filing the petition.
3/6
C.R.P(MD)No.190 of 2020
since the father became ill and bedridden, the petitioners were not informed about either the pendency of the suit or the ex parte decree. Thereafter only on a particular day, they came to know about the ex parte decree.
4/6
C.R.P(MD)No.190 of 2020
9.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
19.11.2024
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No
pnn
5/6
C.R.P(MD)No.190 of 2020
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn
To
ORDER IN C.R.P(MD)No.190 of 2020
19.11.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Was the trial court right in dismissing the petition to condone a delay of 2399 days in setting aside an ex parte decree?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahalingam (Died)
K.Villammal
Santhanamari
Ramalakshmi
Rajasekar
Rajkumar
G.ILANGOVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
