(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Secton115 of C.P.C. to set aside the order dated 24.08.2026 passed in IA No. 3 of 2026 in OS No. 4573 of 1997, on the file of the Honble XI Assistant City Civil Court Chennai.)

1. Heard, Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and M.Nagu Sha, learned counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents/Caveators, who are the contesting respondents.

2. The proceedings arise under a suit for partition. A preliminary decree was passed way back in the year 2010 and an appeal preferred therefrom in A.S.No.354/2012, came to be dismissed for default in the year 2014. Though the petitioners claim that they did not have knowledge of the dismissal of the appeal and came to know about the same only in August 2022, after receipt of the final decree proceedings and on receipt of the notice in the same, they took out an application for setting aside the preliminary decree and an appeal against the preliminary decree. All such attempts are unsuccessful.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 preferred a revision before this Court against the findings of the trial Court in the final decree proceedings on the ground that preliminary decree, being limited to land alone, and finding that there is construction put up over the same, proceeded to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and held that the proceedings should not go on in view of the existence of the building.

4. This Court, by a common order dated 07.08.2025 in C.R.P.Nos.387 & 388 of 2025, allowed the revision petitions and set aside the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.Nos.4793 & 4795 of 2017. In the said order, even though the revision petitioners were not heard, this Court still felt that they were entitled to claim equity at the time of allotment in the final decree proceedings, atleast in respect of the share of the vendors. Thereafter, an attempt was made to file an appeal against the preliminary along with a condone delay petition. The said application was dismissed, against which, a revision came to be filed by the revision petitioners along with their subsequent purchasers. The said revision in C.R.P.No.693/2026 was heard by me and dismissed on 27.02.2026. The present grievance of the revision petitioners is that the proceedings were reopened behind their back and allotment of western half has been made in favour of the respondents 1 and 2.

5. According to Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel, the order of the trial Court is against the letter and spirit of the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.Nos.387 & 388 of 2025 dated 07.08.2025.

6. Mr.Nagu Sha, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 vehemently opposes the revision and states that the present revision petitioners have no subsisting interest in the suit property and they have already alienated the property in favour of Giriya family and its members and therefore, the petitioners have no axe to grind and they cannot even maintain the revision petition, seeking equity to exercise in their favour.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on either side.

8. It is not in dispute that today, with the dismissal of the revision petition challenging the dismissal of the condone delay application in filing the appeal against the preliminary decree, the preliminary decree has become final. The parties are entitled to one half share. The Advocate Commissioner who was appointed in the final decree proceedings has filed a report that the property is roughly an extent of 6000 sq.ft and is divisible by metes and bounds into two equal halves . The Commissioner has suggested division of the suit property as eastern half and western half of equal extents 2956 sq.ft., considering the available extent in the total property.

9. The present grievance of the revision petitioners is that the despite the fact that the petitioners were entitled to be heard before the final decree was passed, especially, in the light of the observation of this Court in CRP.No.387 & 388 of 2025 being made even in their absence, the trial Court ought not to have rejected their application for condonation of delay, to avail themselves of an opportunity that was given by this Court, even as early as on 07.08.2025.

10. I see some force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. At the same time, it should also be kept in mind that the revision petitioners have encumbered the property thereafter and it is not known whether they still continue to retain any interest in the subject property or whether their alienees have stepped into their shoes in entirety. I find that apart from the present revision petitioners, there are four other revision petitioners who also claim that they had subsisting interest in the suit property. In any event, today, the only equity that can be exercised in favour of the revision petitioners is in the light of the observations made by this Court in the order dated 07.08.2025 in C.R.P.Nos.387 & 388 of 2025. When this Court specifically stated that the alienees, namely purchasers /revision petitioners herein as on that date were entitled to exercise of equity in their favour by seeking allotment of the share that may be allotted to their vendors, then, the trial Court has certainly committed an error in depriving a fair opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the final decree proceedings. At the same time, the suit having been filed way back in the year 1985, I do not want the matter to linger on further more and in the interest of both parties and also keeping in mind the decisions that have been rendered in the earlier proceedings between the same parties, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

                   i)The final decree that has been passed shall stand set aside and the petitioners alone shall be entitled to be heard based upon the report already filed by the Advocate Commissioner.

                   ii) There shall be no appointment of fresh Advocate Commissioner or reinspection of the property.

                   iii) Based on the available materials before the Court, the petitioners shall be heard and the Court shall test equity in their favour and shall decide which half of the property is entitled to be allotted to the petitioners/alienees, and which half share shall be allotted to the respondents 1 and 2. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not claim any equity on the ground that they have put up super-structure.

                   (iv) This Court has already come down very heavily on the fact that the petitioners had put up constructions pending the partition suit and therefore, they have no valid titled over the building. In such circumstances, the building which may stand on the half, which is allotted to the respondents 1 and 2, shall also go along with their land entitlement of 50% and no claim shall be made over the same by the revision petitioners.

                   v) The final decree proceedings shall be decided within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.