The court ruled that a delay of 3110 days in filing a revision petition cannot be condoned due to the lack of sufficient cause, emphasizing adherence to procedural principles under the Limitation Act.

ORDER :

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 3110 days in filing the revision petition, challenging the order dated 30.10.2015 in I.A.No.16309 of 2013 in O.S.No.4801 of 2009, on the file of the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. I have heard Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Naveen,, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi, learned counsel for the contesting 1st respondent.

3. Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the suit was filed against a widow and her daughters and an ex-parte decree came to be passed in April 2010 and an application under Section 5 to set aside the ex-parte decree was filed on 25.10.2013, with a delay of 1350 days in seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree. He would further submit that the husband of the 2nd defendant was bedridden and passed away. Even the wife was seriously ill and she was also not of sound mind throughout and she has been regularly taking treatment for her mental conditions as well. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the 2nd defendant filed the application and in order to explain the delay in filing the revision, medical records have also been relied on.

4. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that sufficient records have been filed to establish that the 1st petitioner was not of sound mind and also for having taken continuous treatment for her mental illness. He would however state that it is not a case where the 1st petitioner is completely insane and during her intervals of sanity, she has filed the necessary application before the trial Court as well as the present application seeking condonation of delay of 3110 days. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the plaintiff had filed a similar suit against the brother of the 1st defendant's husband and the said suit came to be dismissed on merits. He would therefore state that when identical set of facts have been projected in the present suit, which is pertaining to the brother of the 1st defendant in the other suit, namely O.S.No.3584 of 2016, the respondent/plaintiff cannot have any case to project, leave alone be successful at trial.

5. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that written statement has been filed, along with the condone delay application, the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the application, instead of giving an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the suit on merits. He would further state that when the delay had been satisfactorily explained, the length of delay is immaterial and this Court taking into account equity, namely the widow, who is supporting three daughters, ought not to have deprived her of an opportunity to safeguard her valuable immovable property. He would further state that in the counter filed, opposing the condonation of delay in filing the present revision petitioners, though it is contended by the 1st respondent/plaintiff that the defendants have already sold the property and they have no subsisting interest, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the alleged sale transaction which is put against the revision petitioners is only sale of undivided share and it no where mentions the suit property and therefore, the said stand taken by the respondent cannot be countenanced.

6. The learned Senior Counsel would also take me through the medical-records of not only the 1st defendant, husband of the 1st petitioner, but also the medical records pertaining to the 1st petitioner as well and contend that the petitioners have clearly shown sufficient cause. He would also rely on the following decisions:

1. Moolchandra Vs. Union of India and another , (2025) 1 SCC 625

2. Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Hariyana and others , 2025 SCC Online SC 896

3. Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2025 SCC Online SC 600

7. Per contra, Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel appearing