Madras High Court
Susila Rani vs Jegadambal on 27 June, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP.Nos.2815 & 3054 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.Nos.2815 & 3054 of 2019
and C.M.P.Nos.18484 & 19639 of 2019
1.Susila Rani
2.Suriya .. Petitioners in both CRPs
Versus
1.Jegadambal
2.Kavitha
3.Jayanthi .. Respondents in both CRPs
Common Prayer:- Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of Code
of Civil Procedure to set aside the fair and decretal orders dated
07.01.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.1254 & 1255 of 2018 respectively in
O.S.No.797 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif,
Salem.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.Mouli
For Respondents : Ms.Zeenath Begum for R1 & R2
R3 – Died
COMMON ORDER
Challenging the order of the Trial Court dismissing the application to
condone the delay of 91 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte
decree, CRP.No.2815 of 2019 has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:05:27 pm )
CRP.Nos.2815 & 3054 of 2019
Challenging the order of the Trial Court dismissing the application
filed under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC and Section 151 of CPC to set aside
the exparte order dated 02.01.2007, CRP.No.3054 of 2019 has been filed.
2. Originally, the respondents has filed a suit in O.S.No.797 of 2005
on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem as against the defendants
for partition and permanent injunction. After trial, preliminary decree was
passed on 02.01.2007. Against which, the petitioners, who are the legal
heirs of the second defendant filed an application in I.A.No.1254 of 2018
to condone the delay of 91 days in filing the petition to set aside the
exparte decree and an application in I.A.No.1255 of 2018 to set aside the
exparte order dated 02.01.2007. The only reasons assigned by the
petitioners to condone the delay and setting aside the exparte decree are
that they came to know about the passing of preliminary decree only when
the advocate commissioner had visited their properties and the second
defendant had not disclosed about the suit to them as he was a drunkard
and not taking care of them during his lifetime. The Trial Court vide
impugned orders dated 07.01.2019 dismissed the applications. Challenging
the impugned orders, the present revisions have been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:05:27 pm )
CRP.Nos.2815 & 3054 of 2019
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that deceased
second defendant never cared about the petitioners during his life time and
they did not know about the passing of the preliminary decree, only when
the advocate commissioner visited the premises, the petitioners came to
know about the same, therefore, the delay occurred. Hence, seeks for
liberal approach.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2
submitted that petitioners have not shown sufficient cause in condoning
each days delay. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi and
others reported in AIR 2022 SC 332, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that when no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory
explanation has been offered by the appellants therein, the High Court is
not at all justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge delay.
Hence, the learned counsel opposed the revisions.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:05:27 pm )
CRP.Nos.2815 & 3054 of 2019
6. The Court, in exercising discretion, particularly in these types of
petitions, has to see the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating
to its inaction or negligence. The above factors are relevant to be taken into
consideration as the fundamental principle is that Courts are required to
weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said
principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach.
There is an increasing tendency to perceive delay even in a non-serious
matter. Hence, the delay due to nonchalant attitude should be curbed at the
initial stage itself. Therefore, once the delay has not been explained and no
documents are produced to substantiate the cause of delay, as a matter of
right, the petitioners should not be shown any liberal approach. When there
is 'no cause' for the delay, it cannot be treated as 'sufficient case'.
7. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India and others reported in (2021) 5 SCC 321
held as follows:
“ 28. It is evident that the term sufficient cause is
relative, fact dependent, and has many hues, largely deriving
colour from the facts of each case, and the behaviour of the
litigant who seeks condonation of delay (in approaching the
court). However, what can broadly be said to be universally
accepted is that in principle, the applicant must display bona
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:05:27 pm )
CRP.Nos.2815 & 3054 of 2019
fides, should not have been negligent, and the delay
occasioned should not be such that condoning it would
seriously prejudice the other party.”
8. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the final decree itself is
passed on 25.09.2015 and shares have been allotted to the parties
concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner had not disputed the
passing of the final decree. Therefore, this Court is the view that once the
delay has not been explained and allegations have not been proved in the
manner known to law, as a matter of right particularly in the partition suit
which has reached finality, the same cannot be unsettled by one of the co-
owner, who has suffered a decree way back in the year 2007. This Court is
of the definite view that the delay cannot be condoned on insufficient
grounds and by abusing the process of law.
9. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed as devoid
of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
stand closed.
27.06.2025
dhk
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:05:27 pm )
CRP.Nos.2815 & 3054 of 2019
dhk
To
1. The Principal District Munsif
Principal District Munsif, Salem
2. The Section Officer
VR Section, Madras High Court
C.R.P.Nos.2815 & 3054 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.18484 & 19639 of 2019
27.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:05:27 pm )
