C.R.P.(MD).No.2173 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR C.R.P(MD) No.2173 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD) No.10906 of 2023 N.Vijaya ... Petitioner Vs. R.Thiruvenkadam (Died) Mohanambal ...Respondent Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Section 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.2 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur in A.S.S.R.No.6705 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur dated 03.01.2023. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokul Raj ORDER The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 1686 days. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD).No.2173 of 2023 2. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money. An exparte decree was passed against the petitioner on 13.04.2015. The certified copy of the exparte judgment and decree was received by the petitioner on 04.07.2015. However, the petitioner filed the first appeal along with a petition to condone the delay of 1686 days only on 26.02.2020. The First Appellate Court refused to condone the delay of 1686 days in filing the appeal. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court with this revision. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was looking after his parents and they died one after another. Therefore, the petitioner could not take steps to file the appeal immediately. 4. It is seen from the impugned order that the respondent filed the Execution Petition in E.P.No.178 of 2016 to execute the exparte decree obtained by him. The petitioner entered appearance in the Execution Petition on 12.01.2017. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the exparte decree as early as January 2017. However, he did not take any steps to file the appeal till February 2020. The death of the petitioner's parents cannot be 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD).No.2173 of 2023 the reason to condone the huge delay that had occurred in this case, especially when the petitioner was able to appear in the Execution Petition and contest the same. The averments in the affidavit that the petitioner was looking after his aged parents and that they died one after another are not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 1686 days, in the light of the fact that the petitioner entered appearance in the Execution Petition and contested the same. 5. The First Appellate Court rightly rejected the petition seeking to condone the delay of 1686 days, and I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the said order. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 20.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Indu 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD).No.2173 of 2023 S.SOUNTHAR, J. Indu C.R.P(MD) No.2173 of 2023 20.07.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis