Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
P. Kalaiselvi W/o Prabhakaran, D/o Dhanasekaran, Pelapore Village, Maiyur Post, Maduranthakam Tk, Kancheepuram Dt – Appellant
Versus
V. Dhanasekaran S/o Balurama Naicker, Bhudur Village, Maduranthagam Tk, Kancheepuram Dt – Respondent
CMP NO. 3069 OF 2024 | CRP No. 621 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.M. Ganesan, Suganya Maya, S.vishal, R.p.rakesh, S.manimaran
For the Respondents: M/s.K.Goviganesan, S.Sriram, M.Vishali, P.Santhosh, C.Vigneshwaran
For R1 To R3: M/s. C. Sathish
The court upheld the necessity of protecting the rights of older defendants in partition suits while balancing the interests of aggrieved parties.
Headnote:The court considered the petitioners' challenge to the Trial Court's order allowing the first defendant's application to set aside an ex parte decree in a partition suit, citing miscommunication as the reason for delay. The court noted the geriatric age of the first defendant (76 years) and affirmed the need to protect his rights in the matter. The ruling emphasized expediency for trial completion while imposing costs on the first defendant for unnecessary delay. The final directive reinforced the urgency of the ongoing litigation yet also considered the compassionate aspects of the father's position.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of the court over the petition. (Para 2) |
| 2. context of the partition suit and history. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding the respondents' age and communication. (Para 4) |
| 4. assessment of the delay and its justification. (Para 6) |
| 5. conclusion and directive for trial completion. (Para 7) |
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and final order dated 31.07.2023 passed in IA.No. 339 of 2016 in OS.No. 432 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.
2. The brief facts of the case:
The petitioners herein filed OS No.432 of 2008 against their father on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kancheepuram, Chengalpattu, for partition. Despite issuing notice, the defendants remained exparte. Consequently, the Trial Court passed preliminary decree and to execute the preliminary decree the petitioners filed final decree application. While pending proceedings, first defendant filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree with the delay of 430 days stating that he misplaced the case papers while taking copy in xerox shop and due to lack of communication he was not able to follow the proceedings. Hence, he prays to condone the delay of 430 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. Upon hearing both sides, the Trial Court allowed the application on payment of cost. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was instituted in 2008 and that the first defendant/the petitioners' father was fully aware of the proceedings but purposefully remained ex-parte. It was argued that he only approached the court after the initiation of final decree proceedings to frustrate the process. But without appreciating the same, the Trial Court allowed the application. Hence, he prays to set aside the order passed by the Trial court.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that the respondent/first defendant is aged about 76 years and due to lack of communication he was not able to follow the court proceedings. Hence, he prays to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition.
5. Heard both sides.
6. A perusal of records, the fact reveals that the daughters/petitioners filed suit against their father/first respondent, who is aged about 76 years. Admittedly, the suit is pending from the year 2008. After passing preliminary decree, the first defendant filed the petition to condone delay of 430 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree stating for the reason that the he misplaced the case bundle in xerox shop while taking photocopy. But the said reason was strongly objected by the petitioners stating that while cross examination of P.W.1, the first respondent purposefully remained exparte with ill intention.
7. Admittedly, the reason stated by the first defendant is not acceptable one. However, it is partition suit between daughters and father and the father is aged about 76 years his rights also to be protected. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. Since, the first defendant is aged about 76 years and the case is of the year 2008, the Trial Court is directed to complete the Trial within a period of three months. Further, the first defendant/respondent is directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner’s counsel. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Pending petition, if any, is/are closed. No Costs.
