The court upheld the Trial Court's discretion to condone substantial delays in re-presenting a plaint, emphasizing that issues of ownership and encroachment require full trial and are not solely subject to limitations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Civil Revision Petitions against an order condoning delay in re-presenting a plaint - Court exercises discretionary powers to allow late resubmissions based on interests of justice - Petitioner argued the plaint is barred by limitation yet permitted by Trial Court. (Paras 1, 3, 10)

(B) Discretionary Powers - The Trial Court is entitled to exercise discretion in condoning delays in interests of justice provided reasonable grounds are presented. (Paras 10, 12)

(C) Mixed Questions of Fact and Law - Questions related to encroachment, ownership, and limitations require a full trial for adjudication; thus mere delay does not negate the right to sue. (Paras 11)

(D) Legal Heirs - Passing of the 1st Respondent during the proceedings does not necessitate premature dismissal as the legal representatives can continue. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed civil revision petitions challenging the Trial Court's decisions to condone substantial delays in a plaint regarding real estate encroachment after failed attempts to resolve the matter through a writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The Court found no irregularity in the Trial Court’s exercise of discretion and affirmed that delay in presentation does not preclude further adjudication once the plaint is accepted.

Issues: Whether the Trial Court's discretion to condone delay was justified, and the implications of the plaintiff's passing on the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing that delay alone does not invalidate claims and that questions of ownership entail matters of fact best suited for trial.

Result: Civil revision petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. verification and handling of encroachment claims (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. procedural history of the plaint re-presentation (Para 4)
3. trial court's discretion on delay condonation (Para 5)
4. defendant's basis for challenging trial court's decision (Para 7)
5. court's assessment of the legal need for heirs representation (Para 8 , 9)
6. rights of defendants once plaint is accepted (Para 10 , 11)
7. judicial integrity and respect for trial court's decisions (Para 12 , 13)
8. final dismissal of civil revision petitions (Para 14)

COMMON ORDER :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Assailing the Fair and Decretal Orders dated March 07, 2022 passed in I.A. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2020 in O.S.S.R. No.12647 of 2015 by 'the Principal District Court, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpet' ['Trial Court' for short], the 3^rd Respondent/3^rd Defendant therein has filed these Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The 1^st Respondent herein who is the Plaintiff in the Original Suit, filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.8764 of 2013 challenging the approval of the building plan dated February 23, 2011 issued by the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority [CMDA] who is the 2^nd Respondent herein, and sought for a direction to the official Respondents therein namely the Member Secretary, CMDA, the Collector, Kancheepuram District and the Commissioner, Pallavaram Municipality and others to demolish the unapproved structures of 'Block B and C bearing Survey No.311/3B2, 200 Feet Road, Self Help Industrial Estate, Kilkattalai, Chennai'.

3. The case of the Writ Petitioner in the Writ Petition is that the private Respondents therein namely Ramasamy and Prema Dhatri (revision petitioner in all CRPs) encroached the Writ Petitioner's property admeasuring 35 feet 4 inches in length and 20 feet in breadth and hence, she sought for a direction to the Respondents 2 to 4 therein to remove the encroachment made in her property by the private Respondents. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition vide its Order dated June 25, 2013 with the following observations in Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 :

“5. On going through the entire materials placed on record, it is seen that there are number of disputed questions of fact with regard to encroachment of the petitioner’s land and making construction in his land and also violation of easementary rights are involved in this case, more over, it is certified by the authority that the construction is as per the sanctioned plan dated 07.05.2012. So, in view of the above, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and file a suit for recovery of possession of his property, which is alleged to be encroached by the seventh respondent, as per the survey report and not by way of filing the present writ petition, which, in our considered opinion, is not maintainable.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Connected M.Ps. are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.”

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid Order, the Writ Petitioner / 1^st Respondent herein filed a plaint in O.S.SR. No.12647 of 2015 on December 17, 2015 before the Trial Court. The said plaint was returned by the Office attached to the Trial Court citing some defects. The plaint was re-presented with a delay of 1048 days on December 3, 2018. However, the plaint was returned again on December 07, 2018 citing some defects. Thereafter, the plaint was again re-presented with a delay of 142 days. Again, the plaint was returned on April 30, 2019. Then, for the third time, the plaint was re-presented with a delay of 528 days. In total, there was a delay of 1718 days.

5. The first respondent herein / plaintiff filed I.A. Nos.1 to 3 of 2020 praying to condone the delay of 1048 days, 142 days and 528 days in re- presenting the plaint. The three Interlocutory Applications were decided on the same day by the Trial Court after hearing both sides. The Trial Court concluded that the explanation offe