C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1826 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1826 of 2026 Sethumadhavan ... Petitioner Vs 1.Amalraj 2.A.K.Raman 3.Sathyamoorthi 4.Ganesan ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC, praying to set aside the Fair order and decreetal order dated 22.08.2022 made in I.A.No.184 of 2021 in O.S.No.158 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thiyagarajan O R D E R The Civil Revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1826 of 2026 seeking to condone the delay of 2711 days in filing a petition to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default. 2. The petitioner herein filed a suit seeking declaration that the power deed dated 23.01.2004 said to have been executed by him in favour of the first defendant and the sale deed dated 21.08.2006 said to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant based on the said power deed were null and void and for consequential injunction restraining the second defendant from alienating the suit property to third parties. The above said suit was dismissed for default on 24.02.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition to restore the suit on 26.08.2021 along with a petition to condone the delay of 2711 days. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, it was stated by the petitioner that due to illness, he could not attend the court on the date fixed for hearing and he could not give suitable instruction to his counsel also. It is further stated that the petitioner was required to visit foreign country frequently in connection 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1826 of 2026 with his avocation and hence, he could not file the petition in time. 4. The vague allocation in the affidavit that the petitioner was affected with illness and hence, he could not attend the Court on the date fixed for hearing and the further allegation that in view of his avocation, the petitioner could not file necessary petition to restore the suit in time are not sufficient to condone the delay of 2711 days. The vague allocation made by the petitioner cannot be treated as a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the enormous delay. The trial Court rightly dismissed the condone delay petition. I don't find any perversity in the said order. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 14.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm To 1. The District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai. 2.The Section Officer, 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1826 of 2026 VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. S.SOUNTHAR, J. vsm C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1826 of 2026 14.07.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis