IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 07.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and CMP.No.30972 of 2025 K.Muthusamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Vennila

2. Santha @ Santhamani ... Respondents Prayer:- Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of the CPC., to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 01.11.2025 made in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in I.A.No.179 of 2018 in O.S.No.44 of 2016 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Kumarapalayam by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.P.Chandrasekaran

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and decretal order dated 01.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in I.A.No.179 of 2018 in O.S.No.44 of 2016 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Kumarapalayam.

2. The second defendant in O.S.No.44 of 2016 is the revision petitioner herein. The second defendant had filed I.A.No.179 of 2018 seeking condonation of a delay of 186 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 17.08.2017. The Trial Court allowed the said application by order dated 18.02.2021, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the respondents on or before 24.02.2021. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the said conditional order and, as a consequence, I.A.No.179 of 2018 came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 1343 days in restoring I.A.No.179 of 2018. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court and, aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. Mr. N. Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was not aware of the conditional order passed by the Trial Court imposing costs of Rs.500/-. Taking this Court through the affidavit filed in support of the application, the learned counsel would contend that sufficient reasons have been assigned for the petitioner’s inability to comply with the conditional order. He would further submit that the cost imposed was only Rs.500/- and that, by no stretch of imagination, would the petitioner have deliberately slept over the matter, had he been informed about the said order. He would also submit that an opportunity may be afforded to the petitioner, particularly in view of the fact that the Trial Court had earlier exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner by allowing I.A.No.179 of 2018, subject to payment of costs. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that, in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India exempting the Covid-19 pandemic period, the delay would not be 1,343 days, but would be for a lesser period.

5. Per contra, Mr.P. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that the Trial Court has passed a well- reasoned order and that the respondents have already taken possession of the property. At this belated stage, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner, as it would result in serious prejudice to the respondents and amount to unsettling settled matters. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and perused the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing I.A.No.2 of 2024.

7. The suit in O.S.No.44 of 2016 was filed by the respondents for partition against one Kandasamy, who was arrayed as the first defendant, and the revision petitioner, who was arrayed as the second defendant. The revision petitioner was set ex parte for non-filing of the written statement within the stipulated time and an ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 17.08.2017. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.179 of 2018 along with the written statement seeking condonation of a delay of 186 days. The sa