Madras High Court
Petitioners vs Lakshmiammal on 26 September, 2025
CRP.No.648 of 2023
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 04.09.2025 Order pronounced on : 26.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.No.648 of 2023
& CMP.No.5088 of 2023
Jayammal (Died) her legal heirs
1.Sasikala
2.Kavitha
Pazhani (Died) his legal heirs
3.Neelaveni
4.Perarivalan
5.Jayalakshmi (Minor)
Represented by her guardian
Neelaveni
Guruvalappar Kovil
Udayarpalayam Taluk,
Ariyalur District – 612 901.
(Cause title accepted vide Court order dated
24.02.2023 made in CMP.No.3728 of 2023
in CRP.SR.No.140466 of 2022)
..Petitioners
Vs.
1.Lakshmiammal
2.Pandiyan
..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, pleased to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.01 of
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 04:58:26 pm )
CRP.No.648 of 2023
2019 in O.S.No.149 of 2016 dated 08.09.2022 passed by the learned Principal
District Munsif Court, Jayankondam.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi
For Respondents : Mr.I.Inian
for Mr.T.Sai Krishnan
for R1
No appearance for R2
ORDER
The defendants in O.S.No.149 of 2016 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Jayankondam are the revision petitioners.
2. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the dismissal of I.A.No.01 of 2019, which was filed by the revision petitioners seeking condonation of delay of 418 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 12.10.2017 in O.S. No.149 of 2016.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent.
2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 04:58:26 pm ) CRP.No.648 of 2023
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the suit has been filed for declaration and recovery of possession, and serious prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioners, if they are not given an opportunity to defend the suit on merits.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further states that the first defendant, Jayammal, who was contesting the suit, was affected by severe jaundice and other age-related ailments. As a result, she was unable to contact her counsel or provide the necessary assistance to file the written statement. It is also stated that the other defendants did not extend proper assistance to the first defendant and had disappointed her. Consequently, the suit came to be decreed ex-parte on 12.10.2017.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, states that a liberal approach ought to have been taken by the Trial Court and that the application for condonation of delay should have been allowed. He has also placed reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Lrs & Ors., Vs. Union of India & Anr in Civil Appeal 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 04:58:26 pm ) CRP.No.648 of 2023 No.5867 of 2015 vide order dated 09.10.2023. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice- oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the revision be allowed.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that no sufficient cause has been made out by the revision petitioners, and the Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay of 418 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.
8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that, subsequent to the ex-parte decree, the first respondent initiated execution proceedings. In the said E.P., the revision petitioners were served with notice as early as 14.08.2018, and they have also entered appearance through counsel on 30.08.2018. Therefore, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, and no interference is warranted with the order of the Trial Court. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 04:58:26 pm ) CRP.No.648 of 2023
9. The learned counsel for the first respondent has also placed reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.Guruswamy and others Vs. A.Krishnaiah since deceased by Lrs reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 54, wherein it was held that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties, and they are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the length of delay is definitely a relevant matter which the Court must taken into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not, and the Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bonafides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation of delay. It is only if the sufficient cause and reasons assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the Court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
10. On going through the affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay petition, I find that the application has been filed by the first defendant, Jayammal. The affidavit was signed on 20.12.2018 and was filed and numbered as I.A.No.01 of 2019 in January 2019.
5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 04:58:26 pm ) CRP.No.648 of 2023
11. In the affidavit, the first defendant Jayammal states that she was suffering from jaundice and, therefore, was unable to contact her counsel. She further states that she came to know about the status of the proceedings only on 10.12.2017. However, this stand is clearly false, in view of the fact that the revision petitioners had already entered appearance in the execution proceedings in August 2018, i.e., much earlier than the claimed date of knowledge. Further, the said application for condonation of delay was not even filed within 30 days from the date of notice being served on the revision petitioners in the execution petition.
12. For all the above reasons, I do find that the petitioners having made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 418 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.
13. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reliefs sought in the suit are substantial in nature and serious prejudice would be caused if they are deprived of an opportunity to defend the suit on merits, I am unable to accept the said submission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.Guruswamy and others case referred to supra held that the Court owes a 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 04:58:26 pm ) CRP.No.648 of 2023 duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only when sufficient cause is assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the Court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. Rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity.
14. In the light of the above, I have already found that the petitioners have come with a false affidavit, as if they became aware of the ex-parte decree only on 10.12.2018, whereas the record clearly shows that they were served with notice on 14.08.2018 and entered appearance on 30.08.2018 in the execution proceedings. Such conduct cannot be condoned.
15. The Court cannot come to the aid of litigants who file false affidavits and suppress facts from the Court. The Trial Court has rightly considered all these aspects and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 04:58:26 pm ) CRP.No.648 of 2023
16. Therefore, I do not see any valid grounds made out to interfere with the law considered by the Trial Court. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
26.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No jas To The Principal District Munsif Court, Jayankondam.
8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 04:58:26 pm ) CRP.No.648 of 2023 P.B.BALAJI.J, jas Pre-delivery order made in CRP.No.648 of 2023 & CMP.No.5088 of 2023 .09.2025 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 04:58:26 pm )