Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, defendants in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 01.03.2012, faced an exparte decree. They filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, along with a petition to condone a delay of 887 days. The trial court dismissed the condonation application on 02.11.2019, finding no sufficient cause. The petitioners then sought to challenge that dismissal by filing a civil revision petition, but there was a further delay of 1749 days. They filed C.M.P.No.16079 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone this delay. The petitioners argued that their erstwhile counsel had obtained signatures but failed to file the revision in time, and that corrections in the date column indicated they were not negligent. The respondent opposed, stating that the sale deed had already been executed in execution proceedings and that the petitioners only woke up when delivery of possession was sought. The court noted that the explanation about the counsel's conduct pertained only to the trial court application and did not address the delay in filing the revision. The court observed that the petitioners knew of the exparte decree in July 2015 when they received notice in execution proceedings, yet they did not act promptly. Finding no sufficient cause, the court dismissed the miscellaneous petition, resulting in the dismissal of the civil revision petition as well.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The petitioners sought condonation of 1749 days delay in filing revision against dismissal of application to set aside exparte decree. The court held that the explanation regarding erstwhile counsel's conduct pertained only to the trial court application and did not explain the delay in filing the revision. The petitioners were aware of the exparte decree in July 2015 but failed to act diligently. Held that no sufficient cause was shown and the petition was dismissed. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners have shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1749 days in filing the civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of their application to set aside an exparte decree.
Final Decision
The court dismissed C.M.P.No.16079 of 2025, refusing to condone the delay of 1749 days. Consequently, the civil revision petition in C.R.P.SR.No.97926 of 2025 was also dismissed.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation Act Section 5
- CPC Order 9 Rule 13
- CPC Section 115
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 20
C.M.P.No.16079 of 2025 in C.R.P.SR.No.97926 of 2025
Mr.M.Mohamed Afridi for petitioners, Mr.P.Murugesan for respondent
Saraswathi and Chandrasekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil miscellaneous petition for condonation of delay in filing civil revision petition against dismissal of application to set aside exparte decree in a suit for specific performance.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought condonation of 1749 days delay in filing civil revision petition to challenge the order dated 02.11.2019 dismissing their application to set aside exparte decree.
Filing Reason
The petitioners' application to set aside exparte decree was dismissed by the trial court for lack of sufficient cause, and they delayed in filing the revision against that dismissal.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed I.A.No.222 of 2017 on 02.11.2019, refusing to condone the delay of 887 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree.
Issues
Whether the petitioners have shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1749 days in filing the civil revision petition.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that their erstwhile counsel obtained signatures but failed to file the revision in time, and corrections in the date column show they were not negligent.
Respondent argued that the sale deed had already been executed in execution proceedings and the petitioners only woke up when delivery of possession was sought, thus no sufficient cause.
Ratio Decidendi
The explanation regarding the erstwhile counsel's conduct pertained only to the trial court application and did not explain the delay in filing the revision. The petitioners were aware of the exparte decree in July 2015 but failed to act diligently. No sufficient cause was shown for the 1749-day delay, and the petition for condonation was dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
Though the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were deceived by their erstwhile counsel... I find that this contentions pertains only to the application before the Trial Court in I.A.No.222 of 2017. The same does not, in any way, substantiate the delay of 1749 days in preferring the present revision petition.
In any event, at least when the petitioners came to know of the exparte decree... in the first week of July 2015, when they received notice in the execution proceedings, they could have... approached this Court at the earliest point of time.
Procedural History
The respondent filed O.S.No.37 of 2014 for specific performance. The suit was decreed exparte. Petitioners filed I.A.No.222 of 2017 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC with a delay of 887 days. The trial court dismissed the condonation application on 02.11.2019. Petitioners then filed C.R.P.SR.No.97926 of 2025 with a delay of 1749 days, along with C.M.P.No.16079 of 2025 for condonation. The High Court dismissed the condonation petition on 12.01.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 9 Rule 13, Section 115
