Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a partition suit filed by the respondent (sister) against the petitioner (sister-in-law) in O.S.No.212 of 2011 before the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. The petitioner was set ex parte at the stage of preliminary decree. She filed an application to condone delay of 81 days in setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree, but that application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.03.2019. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule IX CPC to restore the dismissed application, along with a condone delay application for the delay of 1293 days in filing the restoration application. The trial court dismissed the condone delay application, leading to the present civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the non-uploading of the dismissal order on the online portal, and personal hardships including the death of her husband and her son's college education. The High Court found that the trial court was carried away by the length of delay and failed to consider equitable principles and the fact that the respondent had not initiated final decree proceedings. The court allowed the revision, set aside the trial court's order, and directed the trial court to dispose of I.A.No.407 of 2018 within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - COVID-19 Pandemic - The court considered whether the delay of 1293 days in filing restoration application was sufficiently explained by the petitioner citing the COVID-19 pandemic and personal hardships. Held that the trial court ought to have considered the principles of equity and the fact that the respondent had not initiated final decree proceedings, and thus the delay was condoned to afford an opportunity to contest the suit on merits (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application to condone delay of 1293 days in filing restoration application, considering the COVID-19 pandemic and other circumstances.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the order dated 19.10.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2023, and directed the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee to dispose of I.A.No.407 of 2018 within four weeks from receipt of copy of the order. No costs.
Law Points
- Sufficient cause for condonation of delay
- COVID-19 pandemic as a valid ground for delay
- Principles of equity in condonation of delay
- Opportunity to contest suit on merits
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 282
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petition against dismissal of condone delay application in restoration of application to set aside ex parte preliminary decree in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 19.10.2024 dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2023 and to allow the restoration application.
Filing Reason
The trial court dismissed the condone delay application for restoration, which the petitioner challenged on grounds of COVID-19 pandemic and other hardships.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2023 (condone delay application) on 19.10.2024. Earlier, the application to set aside ex parte decree was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.03.2019.
Issues
Whether the delay of 1293 days in filing restoration application was sufficiently explained.
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the condone delay application without considering equitable principles and the respondent's lack of interest.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the delay was due to COVID-19 pandemic, non-uploading of dismissal order, and personal hardships (death of husband, son's education).
Respondent did not appear despite service.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the trial court ought to have considered the principles of equity and the fact that the respondent had not initiated final decree proceedings, and that the petitioner had made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic and personal hardships.
Judgment Excerpts
The Court ought to have taken into consideration of the principles of equity and also the fact that the plaintiff herself has not shown any keen interest in pursuing the matter by launching any final decree proceedings, pursuant to the exparte preliminary decree.
I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for being given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a partition suit (O.S.No.212 of 2011). The petitioner was set ex parte at preliminary decree stage. Petitioner filed application to condone delay of 81 days in setting aside ex parte decree, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.03.2019. Petitioner then filed restoration application with condone delay application for 1293 days. Trial court dismissed condone delay application on 19.10.2024. Petitioner filed CRP No. 1804 of 2025 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Order 9 Rule IX
