Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 427 Mad
Judgement Date : 6 January, 2021
C.R.P.NPD No.189 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.P.NPD No.189 of 2017
1.A.Swathi
2.A.Deekshikka ..Appellants
Vs.
1.P.K.Jayagopal
2.J.Shanthi
3.J.Lakshmidharan
4.J.Thiruvadhanan
5.C.Sumathi
6.K.Ashok kumar
7.A.Kalaiselvi
8.N.Nirmala
9.N.Prabhuram
10.N.Ramesh
11.A.Sairam
12.P.Loganathan
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.NPD No.189 of 2017
13.A.S.Karthikeyan
14.L.Kiruthika Nandini
15.T.Subha
..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, against
the fair and decreetal order dated 21.11.2016 made in I.A.No.84 of 2015
in O.S.No.192 of 2012 on the file of the first Additional District Court,
Namakkal.
For Appellants : N.Manokaran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Mayilnathan for RR1 to 4, 14 & 15
: No appearance for RR5 to 11
: Batta due for RR12 & 13
JUDGMENT
The civil revision petition is filed to set aside the fair and
decreetal order dated 21.11.2016 made in I.A.No.84 of 2015 in
O.S.No.192 of 2012.
2. The suit was instituted for partition and the same was dismissed
by the Trial Court for default on 03.02.2015. An interlocutory
application in I.A.No.84 of 2015 was filed by the appellants to condone
the delay of 89 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.NPD No.189 of 2017
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that
the interlocutory application filed to set aside the exparte order was
numbered as I.A.No.85 of 2015 and both the applications to condone the
delay and to set aside the exparte order were dismissed. Against
I.A.No.84 of 2015, C.R.P.No.189 of 2017 is filed and against I.A.No.85
of 2015, C.M.A.No.108 of 2017 is filed.
4. The suit was instituted for partition. Thus, the rights of the
parties are to be crystalised. On mere technical grounds, the rights of
the parties cannot be declined. This Court is of the considered opinion
that the delay of 89 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte
order ought have been condoned by the Trial Court and the suit is to be
decided on merits and by affording opportunity to the parties concerned.
the suit sought to be tried and disposed of on merits except on
exceptional circumstances where the parties have intentionally
prolonged and protracted the litigation.
5. In the present case, immediately after the exparte order, the
appellants filed an interlocutory application to condone the delay of 89
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.NPD No.189 of 2017
days and filed another application to set aside the exparte order. This
being the factum, the fair and decreetal order passed on 21.11.2006 in
I.A.No..84 of 2015, is set aside and subsequently, C.R.P.NPD.No.189 of
2017 stands allowed. No costs.
06.01.2021
Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order gsk
To The first Additional District Court, Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.NPD No.189 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gsk
C.R.P.NPD No.189 of 2017
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!