A litigant must show sufficient cause for delay in filing petitions; failure to do so justifies dismissal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

ORDER :

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J.

The present revision petition has been filed by the legal heirs of the defendants 1 & 2, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Sulur, on 04.02.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.346 of 2007, refusing to condone the delay of 4714 days, in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 24.02.2010.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

2.1. The suit in O.S.No.346 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff viz., Sadasivam, before the District Munsif Court, Palladam seeking partition as against st nd the defendants therein. The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the 1 and 2 defendants in the suit. Initially, the suit was dismissed for default on 12.06.2008 and thereafter, it was restored, in which, the defendants were set ex parte on 12.02.2010 and a preliminary decree came to be passed on 24.02.2010.

2.2. Thereafter, the plaintiff Sadasivam, filed an application for passing of final decree in the suit and in the interregnum, the original defendants 1 and 2 had filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. However, in the year 2012, due to bifurcation of the District, the suit came to be transferred to the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore and defendants 1 and 2 were informed by their counsel that notice will be served on them after the suit is renumbered. Thereafter, the bundles were misplaced in the registry and their earlier counsel also died and hence, the case papers could not be traced. In the meantime, the defendants 1 and 2 had also died on 10.01.2016 and 13.08.2014 respectively.

2.3. Thereafter, the suit came to be transferred from the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore to the District Munsif Court, Sulur, wherein, the revision petitioners received a notice in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in I.A.No.2251 of 2014 (renumbered final decree application) in O.S.No.346 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sulur. Since the application filed by the original defendants 1 & 2 could not be traced, the petitioners had once again filed the application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree dated 24.02.2010.

2.4. The application filed by the revision petitioners under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , seeking to condone the delay of 4714 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 24.02.2010 was numbered as I.A.No.2 of 2024. In which, they have contended that the original defendants 1 & 2 came to know about the ex-parte decree only after receiving notice in the final decree proceedings and that the petitioners could not verify the status of the set aside application filed earlier, owing to the transfer of cases and the demise of their counsel.

2.5. The respondents had filed a counter stating that the petitioners ought to have filed the set aside application immediately after coming to know about the preliminary decree and that they have not taken any steps even in the year 2014 after receiving notice in the final decree proceedings, whereas, they have come up with the present application after 13 years and without any proper reasons.

2.6. The learned trial Judge, holding that the petitioners have not stated reasons showing sufficient cause for the delay of 4714 days, had dismissed the application vide order dated 04.02.2025. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the parties are family members and that the suit has been filed for partition, and as such, the revision petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity