Madras High Court
V.Murugan vs V.Mariammal on 17 February, 2025
C.R.P(MD)No.937 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 29.01.2025
Pronounced on : 17.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)No.937 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5088 of 2024
V.Murugan ... Petitioner / Petitioner /
Respondent / Defendant
Vs
1.V.Mariammal
2.V.Narayanan (Died)
3.Pechiammal
4.Muthulakshmi
5.Harish
R3 to R5 are impleaded as LRs of the
deceased R2, vide Court order dated
15.07.2024) ... Respondents / Petitioners / Plaintiffs
PRAYER : This Civil Revision petition is filed under Section 115 of
Civil Procedure Code to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
29.03.2019 in Unnumbered A.S., on the file of Sub Court, Thoothukudi.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.937 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For R1, R3 to R5 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
ORDER
This Civil Revision petition is filed to set aside the fair and
decreetal order dated 29.03.2019 in Unnumbered A.S., on the file of Sub
Court, Thoothukudi.
2. The suit in O.S.No.125 of 2007 was filed by the respondent
herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of their due
share and for cost. The suit was decreed as prayed for with cost by
judgment and decree dated 14.09.2009. Against which the revision
petitioner intended to file an appeal. There is a delay of 2293 days. To
condone the delay, the impugned petition in I.A.No.72 of 2016 was filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the appellate Court stating
that they were not properly informed about the legal right to file an
appeal ; There was wrong advise by the advocate that no appeal can be
filed. Hence there is a delay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. It was resisted by the respondent stating that previously a suit in
O.S.No.18 of 2005 was filed by this revision petitioner against them.
Later he did not prosecute the matter and allowed to be dismissed for
default on 04.12.2006. Later only the respondent filed a suit for
partition. Even during the trial process, the revision petitioner remained
ex parte thrice namely on 01.11.2007, 09.04.2008, 14.09.2009. In all
those three time, ex parte decree was set aside on the petition filed by the
revision petitioner.
4. In pursuance of the preliminary decree, final decree application
was filed by the respondent. Commissioner was appointed. He filed the
report. Again he remained ex parte. To set aside the ex parte order, he
filed I.A.No.1030 of 2015. That also came to be dismissed. To drag on
the final decree proceedings, this petition is filed after a prolonged delay.
5. After hearing both sides, the appellate Court dismissed the
petition against which this revision is preferred.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Reading of the counter filed by the respondent indicates the
lethargic and negligent attitude of the revision petitioner before the trial
Court. Inspite of repeated non-appearance and inspite of preliminary
decree passed thrice, trial Court was very magnanimous in its approach
in setting aside the ex parte decree thrice. But even after that, the
revision petitioner did not correct himself. He again failed to appear in
the final decree proceedings. So this shows that he wants to drag on the
matter endlessly.
7. The suit for partition is filed in the year 2017, still it is dragging
on. This sort of attitude cannot be encouraged. Now coming to the
grounds mentioned by the revision petitioner it is quiet surprising to note
that wrong legal advise was given by the particular advocate, stating that
no appeal will lie against the judgment. No advocate in the profession
would have ever given such an advice. So this itself indicates that the
revision petitioner is not a bonafide and genuine person. As mentioned
above, he wants to drag on the matter to his advantage. So I find
absolutely, no reason to interfere with the order of dismissal passed by
the appellate Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
17-02-2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
pnn
To
1.The Sub Court, Thoothukudi.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn
and
17.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
