Madras High Court
Bakkiyalakshmi vs Sumathi on 16 February, 2021
CRP.NPD.No.2471 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.PD.No.2471 of 2016
1. Bakkiyalakshmi
2. Minor Kanagavalli
Rep.by Natural Guardian Mother ... Petitioners
Vs.
Sumathi ... Respondent
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order of the
learned Principal District Munsif Court, Ulunthurpet, Villupuram District in
I.A.No.1400 of 2015 in O.S.No.167 of 2011 dated 21.03.2016.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Venkatesan
For Respondent : Notice Served (No Appearance)
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal
order passed in I.A.No.1400 of 2015 in O.S.No.167 of 2011 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2471 of 2016
21.03.2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulunthurpet,
Villupuram District, thereby, dismissing the petition to condone the delay in
filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.
2. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the
respondent herein for partition. After filing the written statement, the
petitioners did not appear before the trial Court for cross examination of
P.W.1. Though several opportunities were given to the petitioners for cross
examination, they failed to avail the opportunity and were continuously
absent before the trial Court. Therefore, they were set ex-parte and the ex-
parte decree was passed by the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2014.
Therefore, the petitioners filed a petition to condone the delay of 359 days
in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.
3. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay
petition, it is seen that the petitioners stated that one of the petitioners had
gone out from their native place for his employment. Therefore, he was
unable to contact his counsel and he did not receive the letter returned by
his counsel. He also deposed before the Court below, after the ex-parte
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2471 of 2016
decree and there was a Panchayat. The petitioners did not accept the
decision taken by the Panchayat and thereafter, they filed a petition to set
aside the ex-parte decree. Therefore, immediately after the decree passed in
the suit, the petitioners had knowledge about the same and did not file a
petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. Further, the petitioners also failed
to state sufficient reasons for the delay of 359 days. Therefore, the trial
Court rightly dismissed the petition. That apart, 1/3rd share was allowed to
the petitioners as well as the respondent herein. Therefore, this Court finds
no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below.
4. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
16.02.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kv
To
The Principal District Munsif,
Ulunthurpet,
Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2471 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
kv
CRP.PD.No.2471 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2471 of 2016
16.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
