##PAGE1##

CRP No. 437 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

CRP No. 437 of 2026

Ranjini @ Venkateswari

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

Lalitha Veeramuthu

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India praying to allow the above Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the

Decree and Order dated 03.12.2025 in I.A.No..No.2/2025 in OS.No.5734/2012

passed by the XII Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.G.V. Sridharan

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial

court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No. 2 of 2025 to

condone the delay of 3884 days in filing petition to restore the suit which was

dismissed for default on 24.06.2013.

__________

Page1 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 01:50:23 pm )

CRP No. 437 of 2026

2. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the petitioner filed a suit for

declaration that settlement deed dated 03.10.2003 executed in favour of

defendant was null and void and for permanent injunction. She also prayed for

declaration that cancellation of settlement deed dated 07.12.1993 was also null

and void. The said suit was dismissed for default on 24.06.2013 owing to

continuous non-appearance of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an

application to restore the suit in I.A.No.10279 of 2013. The said I.A was also

dismissed for default on 22.8.2014. Subsequently, petitioner filed various

petitions as referred to in impugned order seeking to restore the IA which was

dismissed for default. All the petitions were dismissed. After filing various

applications to restore the suit and allowed the same to go for default,

suppressing all the above said proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 2 of

2025 to condone the delay of 3884 days seeking restoration of the suit. In the

affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, it was stated by the

petitioner that she is an illiterate widow and hence, she could not take steps to

restore the suit immediately as she was in depressed state.

3. It is seen from the records that immediately after dismissal of the suit

for default, the petitioner had taken steps to restore the suit. However,

successive applications filed by her for restoring the suit were allowed to go for

default till 2017. In the present affidavit, all the above proceedings initiated by

the petitioner has been fully suppressed. Therefore, the averments made by the

__________

Page2 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 01:50:23 pm )

CRP No. 437 of 2026

petitioner that she was in depressed state, therefore she was prevented from

restoring the suit in time, etc., are all not acceptable to this court. The petitioner

has not given any convincing reason to condone the inordinate delay of 3884

days in filing restoration petition. Hence, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the

application. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Trial

Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.

05-02-2026

Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

nr

To

The XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

__________

Page3 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 01:50:23 pm )

CRP No. 437 of 2026

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

NR

CRP No. 437 of 2026

05-02-2026

__________

Page4 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 01:50:23 pm )