CRP No. 4848 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No. 4848 of 2025 Ramasamy, S/o.Marappa Gounder, Kollaparayan Kadu, Elayampalayam, Kaliyanoor Agraharam Village, Thiruchengode Tk, Namakkal Dist. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Mariammal, W/o.Late Muthusamy, D.No.3/549, Oor Kinaru St, Avathipalayam, Pallipalayam Agraharam Post, Thiruchengode Tk, Namakkal Dist. 2. Jayamani, W/o. Sivaraj, D.No. 14/14, Boyer Street, Pallipalayam Town, Kumarapalayam Taluk, Namakkal District-08. 3. Poongodi, W/o. Periyasamy, D.No. 77B, North Street, Vellalapalayam, Paramathi-Velur, Namakkal District-207. 4. Manimaran, S/o. Murugesan, 20, Boyer Street, Pallipalayam, Kumarapalayam Taluk, Namakkal District-08. R2 to R4 impleaded as respondent, vide order dated 6/7/2026 made in CMP No.1517/2026 in CRP No.4848/2025. ..Respondent(s) __________ Page1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 4848 of 2025 Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the order passed by the District Munsif at Kumarapalayam in IA.No.2/2025 in OS.No. 102/2006 dated 11.8.2025. For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.Muruga Bharathi For Respondent(s): Mr.R.T.Vishnu for R1 Mr.C. Ramaraj for R2 to R4. ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the District Munsif at Kumarapalayam in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No. 102 of 2006, dated 11.8.2025. 2. Mr.C.Ramaraj takes notice for the respondents 2 to 4. 3. The petitioner herein is the 8th defendant in the suit in O.S.No.102 of 2006. The first respondent herein / plaintiff filed the above said suit against the defendants 1 to 8, seeking partition of ¼ share in the suit A and B schedule properties and the same was decreed exparte on 09.06.2010. The petitioner/8th defendant filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 to condone the delay of 5408 days in filing the petition to set aside the above said preliminary decree. The said application was dismissed by the trial court and challenging the above said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed. __________ Page2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 4848 of 2025 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents. 5. The petitioner is the 8th defendant in the above said suit for partition and he claimed that he purchased the share of one of the contesting defendants in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that, though the petitioner engaged a counsel to represent him and defend his interest in the preliminary decree stage, the counsel has been in negligent and has left the matter exparte, which resulted in a preliminary decree being passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that only when the final decree proceedings were initiated, the petitioner came to know about the preliminary decree and immediately he has taken out an application to condone the delay 5408 days to set aside the preliminary decree dated 09.06.2010. 6. The said application in I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay was seriously opposed by the contesting respondent/plaintiff and the Trial court, on considering the records, found that even in E.P.No.7 of 20215, though the petitioner had entered appearance and also filed a counter, did not take any steps to set aside the preliminary decree, until 30.04.2025. In my considered opinion, the trial court rightly found that sufficient cause has not been made out. Further, the trial court has also recorded the fact that the Advocate Commissioner also intimated the petitioner at the time of inspection and __________ Page3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 4848 of 2025 therefore, the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings in the suit for partition. It is also bought to my notice that final decree was passed as early as on 24.01.2014 and the execution proceedings has also been terminated. 7. In view of the above discussion, I do not see any infirmity in the trial court's findings, pointing out that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause to condone the delay of 14 years i.e. 5408 days entitling him to discretionary remedy under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 8. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The District Munsif, Kumarapalayam. __________ Page4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 4848 of 2025 P.B.BALAJI, J. MST CRP No. 4848 of 2025 16-07-2026 __________ Page5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis