SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Santhanam – Appellant
Versus
Govindhasamy – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition in IA Sr. No. 2553 of 2026 in IA No. 585 of 2024 in OS No. 305 of 2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.S.Dhanalakshmi

A party cannot bypass formal appellate procedures or formal challenges to a trial court's order by filing a review application when the underlying dismissal of a delay condonation application remains unassailed.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court's docket order in a matter concerning an ex-parte preliminary decree and a dismissed delay condonation application. The petitioner claimed the existence of a prior registered partition document which suppressed the plaintiff's claim, though the delay condonation application had previously been dismissed. The court observed that a substantial dispute exists between the parties regarding property shares. The main issue was whether the revision petitioner could bypass an existing order by filing a review application before the trial court. The court reasoned that since the order in I.A. No. 585 of 2024 had not been formally challenged via an appeal or revision, the petitioner must adopt the appropriate legal remedy to challenge the dismissal order rather than continuing via a pending review application. The final result is that the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the grant of liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order in the manner known to law within four weeks, with a temporary stay on the execution of the decree.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving suppression of facts and delay in challenging an ex parte decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)

PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, prays to set aside the docket order dated 26.03.2026 passed in IA Sr. No. 2553 of 2026 in IA No. 585 of 2024 in OS No. 305 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Gingee.

For Petitioner(s): MS.G.S.Dhanalakshmi For Respondent(s):

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this revision petition to set aside the docket order dated 26.03.2026 passed in IA Sr. No. 2553 of 2026 in IA No. 585 of 2024 in OS No.

305 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Gingee.

2. By suppressing the earlier partition that had taken place in the family, the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 305 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District and Munsif Court, Gingee, and obtained an ex parte preliminary decree. According to the petitioner, he is an illiterate person and, due to lack of communication, was unaware of the decree. Upon coming to know of the same, he filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 3,097 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree.

However, the said application was dismissed on 02.07.2025.

3. According to the revision petitioner, a registered partition had already taken place on 19.09.2019 under Document No. 1128 of 2019. However, the plaintiff failed to disclose the said partition before the Court and, by suppressing the earlier partition, obtained a preliminary decree in respect of the property that had allegedly fallen to the share of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed the delay condonation application, which came to be dismissed on 02.07.2025. Thereafter, having a substantial defence to put forth, he filed a review application, but the same has not yet been considered by the trial Court.

4. On a perusal of the records, it appears that the plaintiff and the revision petitioner are brothers. According to them, a registered partition had taken place in the year 2019, under which the suit property was allotted to the share of the revision petitioner. Thus, there appears to be a substantial dispute between the parties.

5. However, the order passed in I.A. No. 585 of 2024 in O.S. No. 305 of

2014 has not been challenged. Instead, the petitioner has filed a review application. In the circumstances, liberty is granted to the revision petitioner to challenge the order in the manner known to law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the decree shall not be given effect to.

6. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top