(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 2629 days in filing this Civil Revision Petition against the order and decreetal order dated 08.11.2017 passed in I.A. No.553 of 2017 in O.S. No.857 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.)

1. An application to condone the delay of 2629 days in filing the revision petition challenging the dismissal of an order in I.A.No. 553 of 2017 in O.S.No.857 of 2008 dated 08.11.2017 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

2. I have heard Ms. Sheena Palanivelu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Jyoti for Mr.J.Nandagopal, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the plaintiff, Chinnammal who had filed the suit for partition claiming half share in the suit properties. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that the petitioners were in dark about the suit filed by their mother, Chinnammal and that their mother was the daughter of late Ganapathy Gounder alias Ganapathiappan. The learned counsel would rely on a legal heir certificate of Chinnammal, wife of Arumugam dated 10.03.2025, where the name of their father has been reflected as Ganapathy Gounder and whereas in the death certificate of Valliamal, the first wife, the name of the husband has been mentioned as Ganapathiappan. Contending that both Ganapathiappan and Ganapathy Gounder are different persons, the respondents are trying to deny legitimate half share in the suit property. The learned counsel would therefore state that an opportunity may be given to the petitioners to establish their right by having the suit restored to file.

4. Insofar as delay in preferring the revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the mother alone was taking care of the suit and they were not aware of the proceedings, their mother died on 05.09.2024 and only in April 2025, when they had an occasion to meet their Advocate in connection with the properties of their mother, they came to know that the suit had been dismissed for default and thereafter, an application has been taken out for condonation of delay in challenging the order dismissing the application for restoration of the suit.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would therefore state that sufficient cause has been made out and the delay may be condoned, so that the petitioners are given some indulgence to put forth their contentions to establish their half right in the valuable immovable property.

6. Per contra, Ms.Jyothi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that even during the lifetime of their mother, the suit was dismissed for default and in fact, the mother took out an application to have the suit restored to file, which was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. However, the mother of the petitioners did not pay the costs and comply with the conditional order and the dismissal of the suit was therefore confirmed. She would therefore state that there is absolutely no merit in the submissions made on the side of the petitioners that the petitioners have shown sufficient cause and are entitled to the discretionary relief by way of condonation of the delay of 2629 days. She therefore prays for dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

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

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff, Chinnamal who had filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.857 of 2008. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.07.2016, on account of non-appearance of the plaintiff. The mother of the petitioners filed I.A.No.553 of 2017 to condone the delay in filing an application to restore the suit. The said application was allowed by order dated 08.11.2017, directing payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. However, it is an admitted fact that the mother of the petitioners did not pay the said cost and subsequently the condone delay application was dismissed and consequently, the suit was not restored to file.

9. After a lapse of close to 8 years, the petitioners have challenged the said order in IA.No.553 of 2017 by moving this Court by way of the above CRP.SR.No.96408 of 2025. There is a delay of 2629 days in preferring the revision. The explanation offered by the petitioners is that they were not aware of the suit and only in April 2025 when they met their advocate to know about the status of the properties of their mother, they were informed about the dismissal of the suit and thereafter, they have taken out the present application.

10. The said application is resisted by filing of a counter affidavit of the second respondent who has stated that the petitioners are immediate family members of the plaintiff, Chinnamal and they cannot feign complete ignorance of legal proceedings initiated by their mother for close to 15 years and that even for claiming that they came to know about the dismissal of the suit only in April 2025 also, there is no proof to substantiate the same. It is therefore contended by the respondents that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause entitling them to condonation of 2629 days.

11. The only reason that has been put forth explaining the inordinate delay of 2629 days is that the petitioners were never aware of the suit filed by their mother in the first place and that only when they met their Advocate they came to know about it and immediately, they have taken out the application to challenge the order passed, dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the application to restore the suit to file.

12. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners had not stated as to why there was even any necessity to meet the Advocate in connection with the properties of their mother. No documents in support of the said submissions are also made available in support of the application for condonation of delay. Further, admittedly it is not the case of the petitioners that their mother was living separately. They were all living under the same roof and it is not believable to contend that the petitioners were totally in dark about the partition suit filed by their mother which was filed way back in the year 2008. Even their mother has not been diligent during her lifetime and despite an indulgence being shown by the Court to condone the delay in having the suit restored to file, the conditional order was not complied with by their mother which resulted in the dismissal of the application. It is this order which is now sought to be challenged by the petitioners. When there has been default in compliance of the conditional order and several years have passed since, I can only term the delay of 2629 days as inordinate and totally unexplained. I do not see any reasons meriting acceptance of the explanation offered by the petitioners. The petitioners have not shown any sufficient cause. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Civil Revision Petition is also rejected at the SR stage itself. No order as to costs.