Dismissed¶¶67

Mariyaanthony v. Selvaraj (Died)

Madras HC7 Jul 2025CRP(MD)/1097/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 9265 days; setting aside dismissal of final decree application; execution of decree barred by limitation; 12-year limitation for executing decree; Limitation Act 1963; Article 227 Constitution of India; partition suit O.S.No.318 of 1975; preliminary decree 23.02.1977; final decree application dismissed 29.09.1992; first defendant died 01.03.1992; Advocate Commissioner report 16.12.1991; Additional District Munsif Padmanabhapuram; Kanyakumari District; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1097 of 2020; M.Dhandapani J.; revision dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶¶67

Mariyaanthony Vs Selvaraj (Died) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court rightly dismissed the petitioner's application (I.A.No.1 of 2019) seeking condonation of delay in filing the application to set aside the dismissal of the final decree application, the petitioner explaining the delay by his brother's failure to pursue the matter and his unawareness of the dismissal. +1 more

¶¶58

Ratio / Principle

The Limitation Act, 1963 sets a 12-year limit for executing a decree; the period begins when the decree becomes enforceable, typically the date the judgment is pronounced.

¶¶64

Key takeaways

The petitioner's petition for executing the decree passed in the year 1977, filed after a lapse of more than 20 years, is clearly barred by limitation.ratio¶¶66
The inordinate delay of 25 years in pursuing execution of the decree has not been properly explained by the petitioner.ratio¶¶66
Although the Civil Revision Petition was of the year 2020 and the petitioner had not taken effective steps to effect service on the private respondents, the Court disposed of the revision on the available records considering its pendency.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 31.01.2020 of the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.318 of 1975 (a suit for partition in which a preliminary decree was passed on 23.02.1977), whereby the Munsif dismissed the petitioner's application to condone a delay of 9265 days in seeking to set aside the dismissal of the first defendant's final decree application. The final decree application, in which an Advocate Commissioner's report was filed on 16.12.1991, had been dismissed on 29.09.1992 after the first defendant's death on 01.03.1992, his legal heirs not coming forward. Held, dismissing the revision: under the Limitation Act, 1963 there is a 12-year limit for executing a decree running from the date the decree becomes enforceable; the petition to execute the 1977 decree filed after more than 20 years was clearly barred by limitation, and the inordinate delay of 25 years was not properly explained. No order as to costs.

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1097 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1097 of 2020

¶7

Mariaanthony

¶8

... Petitioner/ Petitioner/4^th Plaintiff Vs.

¶9

Selvaraj (Died)

¶10

Rajayyan

¶11

Maria Sebastin

¶12

... Respondents 1 and 2/ Respondents 2 and 3/ Plaintiffs 2 and 3

¶13

Rajendran (died)

¶14

Devakadaksham Nadar

¶15

Nagamony

¶16

Rosammal

¶17

Harris (Died),

¶18

Gnanabharanam (Died),

¶19

Muthian

¶20

Palayyan

¶21

Thankamony

¶22

Rajamony

¶23

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

¶24

1/7

¶25

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1097 of 2020

¶26

Chellian

¶27

Raju

¶28

Rajamony

¶29

Yovel

¶30

Chella Nadar

¶31

Gnanmony (Died)

¶32

Palammal

¶33

Marianthankam

¶34

Davidson

¶35

Daisy

¶36

Bright

¶37

Raby

¶38

21.Johnson S/o.Chelliah Nadar

¶39

The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶40

The Commissioner Thuckalay Panchayat Union, Esakkivilai, Kodiyoor Desom, Thriuvithancode Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶41

Chellam Nadachi D/o.Nachi Nadachi

¶42

Santhosam @ Vargheese (Died),

¶43

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

¶44

2/7

¶45

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1097 of 2020

¶46

Sathyaraj 26. Johnson

¶47

John Rose 28. Francis

¶48

Mathias ... Respondents 3 to 29/ Respondents 5 to 7, 10 to 18, 20 to 29 and 31 to 35/ Defendants 2 to 4, 7 to 15 17 to 26 and 3^rd parties

¶49

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order passed by the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No. 318 of 1975, dated 31.01.2020, and set aside the same and may direct the trial Court to restore final decree applications and may proceed with the case for final adjudication.

¶50

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For R22 and R23 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶51

ORDER

¶52

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the fair and decreetal order passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.318 of 1975, dated 31.01.2020.

¶53

2.The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.318 of 1975 filed for

¶54

partition and a preliminary decree was passed in that suit on 23.02.1977. Thereafter, final decree application was also filed by the first defendant in the

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7

¶56

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1097 of 2020

¶57

suit. In the final decree application, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and a report was also filed on 16.12.1991. During the pendency of the final decree application, the first defendant died on 01.03.1992. Since the legal heirs of the first defendant has not come forward to proceed with the final decree proceedings, the final decree application was dismissed on 29.09.1992. Thereafter, with the delay of 9265 days, the petitioner herein has filed an application seeking to condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside the order made in the final decree application. The said petition was dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

¶58

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the preliminary decree was passed in the year 1977. The final decree application was dismissed in the year 1992. The petitioner contended that the petitioner entrusted his brother to look after the case and he failed to pursue the matter properly and the petitioner was not aware of the dismissal of the final decree proceedings. When the petitioner came to know about the order made in the final decree proceedings, immediately, he filed an application to set aside the order made in the final decree proceedings. Hence, the delay was occurred. However, the trial Court without considering all these aspects has dismissed the application of the petitioner.

¶59

4/7

¶60

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

¶61

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1097 of 2020

¶62

4.Though this Civil Revision Petition is of the year 2020, the petitioner has not taken any effective steps to effect service on the private respondents. However, considering the pendency of this Civil Revision Petition, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Civil Revision Petition based on the available records.

¶63

5.The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition. It is also equally undisputed that the first defendant already initiated final decree proceedings and the same was dismissed. Now, the petitioner, who is the fourth defendant in the suit, filed an application for executing the decree with the delay of 25 years. The petitioner claims that he was not aware of the dismissal of the final decree proceedings filed by the first defendant in the suit and immediately, after coming to know about the said dismissal, he filed the final decree proceedings with delay and the said delay is not wilful.

¶64

6.The Limitation Act, 1963, sets a 12-year limit for executing a decree. The 12-year period begins when the decree becomes enforceable, which is typically the date the judgment is pronounced. In the present case, the preliminary decree itself was passed in the year 1977. Now after a lapse of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7

¶65

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1097 of 2020

¶66

more than 20 years, the petitioner has filed this petition for executing the decree passed in the year 1977, which is clearly barred by limitation. Further, the inordinate delay of 25 years has not been properly explained by the petitioner.

¶67

7 .Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall

¶68

be no order as to costs.

¶69

07.07.2025

¶70

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes / No ta

¶71

¶72

1. The Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.

¶73