IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CMP. No.27635 of 2025 in Rev.Appl.SR. No.175475 of 2025 C.Bakthavatsalam Petitioner(s)

Vs Ramani Bai (Died)

1.C.Uma Rani 2.S.Usha Rani

3.C.Ramesh Babu

4.C.Suresh Babu Respondent(s)

PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 315 days in filing the present Review Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ananth For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr.T,Easwaradhas **********

ORDER

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 315 days in filing the present Review Petition.

2. I have heard Mr.Ananth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.T.Easwaradhas, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the First Appeal was disposed of by this Court, in and by a judgment and decree dated 30.10.2024. Though the First Appeal itself was directed against the reject the plaint application, this Court held that it was not a case warranting rejection of the plaint and parties had to necessarily undergo trial. The learned counsel states that certain findings and observations have been made in the judgment in the above Appeal Suit which will come in the way of the petitioner at the time of going for trial of the Suit. He would therefore state that the Review Application was absolutely necessary.

4. With regard to condonation of delay, the learned counsel would state that the learned counsel on record was suffering from serious health ailments and he was not in a position to attend the Courts regularly and that was the main reason for not filing the review in time. The learned counsel would therefore pray for the delay being condoned.

So that, the Review Application can be heard on merits.

5. Per contra, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause and the reasons assigned for the delay are not satisfactory or sufficient to enable the petitioner to a discretionary order of a condonation of delay of close to more than 10 months in filing the Review Application. In fact, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel would further state that even on the merits, there is no ground arising for reviewing the judgment passed by this Court and therefore, from this angle also, there is no useful purpose in condoning the delay. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the Civil Miscellanous Petition.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the records.

7. The respondents, as plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession.

It is the defence contention of the petitioner who is none else than the brother of the respondent/plaintiff that the respondent has received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and relinquished all her interest in the suit property and therefore, nothing remains to be claimed by way of partition. In order to have the plaint rejected, an Application was filed in I.A. No.8014 of 2018. Though the Trial Court allowed the Application in reject the plaint, this Court in the above Appeal A.S. No.105 of 2023, set aside the order of the Trial Court and remitted the matter back to the City Civil Court for trial. I have gone through the grounds set out in the Review Application as well. The only point that survives for consideration is whether there was any release for consideration by the deceased plaintiff in favour of the revision petitioner. The said issue has to be decided only at Trial, by the parties leading oral and documentary evidence. It is on only on this ground that the Appeal Suit also came to be allowed. The apprehension of the petitioner is that this Court while allowing the Appeal Suit has inte