Madras High Court
E.Karunakaran vs E.Sivamani on 1 April, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
CMP.No.7526 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
CMP.No.7526 of 2025
in AS.SRNo.16216 of 2025
E.Karunakaran
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.E.Sivamani
2.E.Kumar
3.E.Janakiraman
4.G.Selvakumari
5.D.Raja Kumari
6.C.Saraswathi
7.V.Devika Respondent(s)
Prayer in CMP.No.12720 of 2024: Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 3Aof
CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of
1694 days in filing the above appeal.
Prayer in Appeal Suit: Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil
Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2020 in
O.S.No.497 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Subramanian
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 1694 days
in filing the above appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:44:14 pm )
2. The suit has been filed for partition. The petitioner was arrayed as the
second defendant. Preliminary decree has been passed to divide the suit
property into eight equal shares.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the defendants 1 and 3
are brothers contesting the matter, he trusted them, however, later he came to
know that the defendants 1 and 3 have not properly contested the matter.
According to him, he is in possession of 284 sq.ft., and the property cannot be
partitioned. The suit has been filed only on the basis of patta, therefore, there
cannot be partition.
4. Since, no adverse order is passed against the respondents, notice to
them is dispensed with. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the materials placed on record.
5. On perusal of the entire affidavit, this Court is of the view that this
petition has been filed to condone such huge delay only in order to protract the
partition suit to the maximum extent. The contention that possessory right held
cannot be partitioned has no legs to stand. Similarly, the contention that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:44:14 pm )
property cannot be divided also has no legs to stand. These factors can be
decided only in the final decree proceedings. At any event, there is no
sufficient reasons in the entire affidavit filed in support of the petition to
condone such huge delay.
6. Of course, the expression“sufficient cause” should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or
inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. Casually filing the
petition to condone the delay in filing without any proper reasons, such huge
delay cannot be condoned. A Court granting indulgence must be satisfied that
there was deligence on the part of the appellant and that he was not guilty of
any negligence whatsoever. Where there is no sufficient cause for condoning
the delay, the said delay should not be condoned as it amounts to a case of
discretion not being exercised judicially. Hence, I do not find any merits to
condone such huge delay in filing the appeal.
7. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed and un-numbered appeal
suit stands rejected. No costs.
01.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:44:14 pm )
dhk
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk
To,
1.The III Additional Judge
III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, Madras High Court
01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:44:14 pm )
