IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 02.01.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 12.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI C.M.P.No.16079 of 2025 in C.R.P.SR.No.97926 of 2025

1.Saraswathi

2.Chandrasekar ... Petitioners Vs.

P.Manikam ... Respondent Prayer in CMP.No.16079/2025: Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, pleased to condone the delay of 1749 days in filing the present civil revision petition in C.R.P.Sr.No.97926 of

2025.

Prayer in CRP.SR.No.97926/2025: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, pleased to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.222 of 2017 in O.S.No.37 of 2014 dated 02.11.2019 on the file of the Learned District Munsif Court at Krishnagiri by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Mohamed Afridi For Respondent : Mr.P.Murugesan

O R D E R

This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of

1749 days in preferring the civil revision petition.

2. I have heard Mr.Mohamed Afridi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Murugesan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.37 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 01.03.2012. The suit came to be decreed exparte by the Trial Court. In order to set aside the exparte decree, the petitioners took out an application under Order 9 Rule XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with an application to condone the delay of 887 days in filing the said application.

4. The application in I.A.No.222 of 2017 was strongly opposed by the respondent/plaintiff and by order dated 02.11.2019, the Trial Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding that the petitioners have not shown any sufficient cause. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the said dismissal of the application. However, even the revision petition has not been filed in time and there is a delay of 1749 days in preferring the revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the erstwhile counsel for the petitioners had obtained signatures of the petitioners on necessary revision papers. However, the revision petition was not filed in time. The learned counsel for the petitioners also invited my attention to the corrections that have been made in the “date column”. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners cannot be accused of being callous or indifferent in the matter, as they had promptly approached the counsel and taken steps to file the application as early as in the year 2015.

6. Mr.P.Murugesan, learned counsel for the respondent, however, opposed the application for condonation of delay, contending that even way back in 2015, pursuant to the decree for specific performance, the respondent had filed an execution petition and the sale deed had already been executed in favour of the respondent. It is only when the execution petition filed for delivery of possession was taken up and notice was ordered in the said proceedings, that the petitioners belatedly woken up and chose to challenge the order passed in I.A.No.222 of 2017. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the miscellaneous petition.

7. I have carefully considered the submission advanced by the learned counsels on either side.

8. Though the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were deceived by their erstwhile counsel and that the counsel on record had made corrections in the date of the affidavit sworn in the year 2015 behind the back of the petitioners, I find that this contentions pertains only to the application before the Trial Court in I.A.No.222 of 2017. The same does not, in any way, substantiate the delay of 1749 days in preferring the present revision petition.

9.