IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 172 of 2021 and CMP No.1584 of 2021

1. T.Dhanasekaran S/o. Late Sri Thiruvengada Naicker, No.32, Bhagavath Singh St, Kasturibai Nagar, West Tambaram, Chennai 45. Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. SARADAMBAL W/o. Late. Shanmuga Naicker, No.2-a, Gst Road, Thimmarajakulam, Chengalpattu Town.

Thulasi (died)

2.SENTHAMARAIAMMAL W/o. Mahadevan, No.53, V.O.C.

Street, Kasturi Nagar, West Tambaram, Chennai 45.

Agilandammal (died)

3.GNANAMBAL W/o. Late. Thulasi, No.38, Gandhi St, Kakka Nagar, Adambakam, Chennai 88.

4.Sri. Raji S/o. Late. Sri Thulasi, No.38, Gandhi St, Kakka Nagar, Adambakam, Chennai 88.

5.KALA D/o. Late. Sri Thulasi, No.38, Gandhi St, Kakka Nagar, Adambakam, Chennai 88.

6.KOWSALYA D/o. Sri Thulasi, No.38, Gandhi St, Kakka Nagar, Adambakam, Respondent(s)

Chennai 88.

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.08.2019 in IA.No.2014 of

2015 in OS No.196 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, chengalpattu.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ravi Kumar Paul, Senior Advocate For M/s.Paul And Paul For Respondent(s): Mr.A.S.NARASIMHAN for R1 RR2 TO 6 UNCLAIMED

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 1571 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte preliminary decree dated 01.07.2011.

2. The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.196 2004 for partition against the petitioner, who was arrayed as 2^nd defendant and other respondents/ defendants. The petitioner herein entered appearance in the suit and he engaged a counsel. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has denied the facts pleaded by the plaintiff by filing written statement. Subsequently, exparte preliminary decree came to be passed on 01.07.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant application on 18.11.2015 to condone the delay of 1571 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte preliminary decree. The Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the counsel for the petitioner informed the petitioner that immediately after listing of the suit for trial, he would send communication to him. In the meantime, the first respondent/plaintiff approached the petitioner and informed him that she was not going to conduct the case further and she would given up her claim over the suit property. Believing the said words, the petitioner did not follow up the case and only during the month of November 2015, he acquired knowledge about the final decree proceedings initiated by the first respondent, through an information given by one Raju. Immediately, steps have been taken to set aside the exparte preliminary decree. He would further submit that taking into consideration the relief sought for in the suit is for partition, the Trial Court should have taken a liberal view of the matter. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions of this court in i) Karuppusamy and another Vs. K.C.Palanisamy reported in 2013 SCC Online Mad 1721 and ii) Krishnaveni and another Vs. Nagammal and others reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad

10555

4. A perusal of the typed set of papers would indicate that the petitioner engaged a counsel and filed his written statement. Thereafter, he failed to follow up the case and hence, exparte preliminary decree was passed against him on 01.07.2011. It is also seen from the typed set of papers that after passing of exparte preliminary decree, the first respondent filed an application to pass final decree in I.A.No.1863 of 2012. In the said final decree proceedings also, the petitioner failed to appear and he was set exparte on 28.10.2013. The petitioner has not tak