IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CMP. No.23873 of 2025 in CRP. SR. No.96408 of 2025 Chinnammal (deceased)

1.Mr.Mahalingam.A 2.Mr.Arumugham.M Petitioners Vs V.G.Subramaniam (deceased)

1.Rajamani

2.Ilango Respondent(s)

(Cause Title accepted vide Court order dated 24.09.2025 made in CMP. No.23269 of 2025 in CRP. SR. No.96408 of 2025)

PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 2629 days in filing this Civil Revision Petition against the order and decreetal order dated 08.11.2017 passed in I.A. No.553 of 2017 in O.S. No.857 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.J.Nandagopal **********

ORDER

An application to condone the delay of 2629 days in filing the revision petition challenging the dismissal of an order in I.A.No. 553 of 2017 in O.S.No.857 of 2008 dated 08.11.2017 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

2. I have heard Ms. Sheena Palanivelu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Jyoti for Mr.J.Nandagopal, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the plaintiff, Chinnammal who had filed the suit for partition claiming half share in the suit properties. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that the petitioners were in dark about the suit filed by their mother, Chinnammal and that their mother was the daughter of late Ganapathy Gounder alias Ganapathiappan. The learned counsel would rely on a legal heir certificate of Chinnammal, wife of Arumugam dated 10.03.2025, where the name of their father has been reflected as Ganapathy Gounder and whereas in the death certificate of Valliamal, the first wife, the name of the husband has been mentioned as Ganapathiappan. Contending that both Ganapathiappan and Ganapathy Gounder are different persons, the respondents are trying to deny legitimate half share in the suit property. The learned counsel would therefore state that an opportunity may be given to the petitioners to establish their right by having the suit restored to file.

4. Insofar as delay in preferring the revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the mother alone was taking care of the suit and they were not aware of the proceedings, their mother died on 05.09.2024 and only in April 2025, when they had an occasion to meet their Advocate in connection with the properties of their mother, they came to know that the suit had been dismissed for default and thereafter, an application has been taken out for condonation of delay in challenging the order dismissing the application for restoration of the suit.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would therefore state that sufficient cause has been made out and the delay may be condoned, so that the petitioners are given some indulgence to put forth their contentions to establish their half right in the valuable immovable property.

6. Per contra, Ms.Jyothi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that even during the lifetime of their mother, the suit was dismissed for default and in fact, the mother took out an application to have the suit restored to file, which was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. However, the mother of the petitioners did not pay the costs and comply with the conditional order and the dismissal of the suit was therefore confirmed. She would therefore state that there is absolutely no merit in the submissions made on the side of the petitioners that the petitioners have shown sufficient cause and are entitled to the discretionary relief by way of condonation of the delay of 2629 days. She therefore prays for dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counse