MEMORANDUM OF CIVIL REVISION PETITION

(Under Art.227 of the Constitution of India)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI

C.R.P.No. of 2023

In

I.A.No.497 of 2020

In

I.A.No.1202 of 2006

In

O.S.No.203 of 2004
(on the file of District Munsif, Chengalpattu)

N.Lokanathan (Deceased).

1. L.SAROJA (Aged 74 years)

D/o. Late Loganatha Naiker,
Senthamangalam village,
Thachur Post, Cheyyur Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.

2. D.TAMILSELVI (Aged 55 years)

No.16.A, Sakthi Nagar,
16th Street, Nerkundram,
Chennai - 600107.

3. L.KANNAN (Aged 53 years)

S/o. Late Loganatha Naiker,
Senthamangalam village,
Thachur Post, Cheyyur Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
 2

4. L.ASHOK (Aged 52 years)

S/o. Late Loganatha Naiker,
Senthamangalam village,
Thachur Post, Cheyyur Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.

5. S.JAYANTHI (Aged 42 years)

D/o. Late Loganatha Naiker
Echankaranai Village,
Thirukazhukundram,
Chengalpattu District.

…Petitioners/Petitioners/Legal Heirs of Defendant-1

Versus

1. N.RAMACHANDRAN,
S/o. Late Neelakanda Naicker,
No.75/1, M.P.C.Street, Pudu Eri,
Chengalpattu town & Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
…Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

2. GOVINDHA NAICKER,
Thazambedu Village,
Sogandi Post, Thirukazhukundram,
Chengalpattu District.

3. NAGARAJAN,
Teacher, Vanniyar Sangam School,
Thirukazhukundram,
Chengalpattu District.

4. SOMU NAICKER,
Thazambedu Village,
Sogandi Post (Via), Thirukazhukundram,
Chengalpattu District.
 3

5. S.VEDAGIRI,

6. V.KARUNAKARAN
S/o. Vedagiri

7. V.SELVI VEDHAGIRI
D/o. Vedagiri

8. B.MURUGAN
S/o. Balaraman

Respondents 5 to 8
Residing at Thazambedu Village,
Sogandi Post (Via), P.V.Kalathur
Thirukazhukundram, Chengalpattu District.

9. POOSHANAM @ GOVINDAMMAL
W/o. Boopathy

10. SELVI BALARAMAN

D/o. Balaraman

Respondents 9 & 10
Residing at Pudhupakkam Village,
P.V.Kalathur Post,
Thirukazhukundram,
Chengalpattu District.

11. P.AZHAGESAN @ MANIVANNAN

S/o. Panchacharam

12. P.DHANASEKARAN
S/o. Panchacharam

13. AMSAVENI

Respondents 11 to 13
Residing at Mel Perumalseri Village & Post (Via),
Kalpakkam, Chengalpattu District.
…Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
 4

Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Revision Petition

The address for service of the petitioners are that of their

counsel M/s. MANOJ SREEVALSAN, J.CHANDRASEKAR,

J.RAJASEKAR, K.KARTHIKEYAN & R.KRITYA, at No.199, Law

Chambers, High Court, Chennai – 104.

The address for service on the respondents is as given

above.

The petitioners prefer the above Memorandum of

Grounds of Civil Revision Petition challenging the fair and

decretal order dated 30/06/2023 passed by the Hon’ble District

Munsif Court, Chengalpattu in I.A.No.497/2020 in

I.A.No.1202/2006 in O.S.No.203/2004 for the following among

other grounds: -

1) Facts of the case:

Case of the petitioners: -

The above suit was originally filed as O.S.No.88 of 1987 on

the file of Hon’ble Sub-Court, Chengalpattu by the first

respondent along with his late mother Mrs.Komalaammal

 5

against Late Mr.N.Loganathan (husband of the first petitioner

and father of the petitioners 2 to 5 herein) seeking partition of

the plaint scheduled properties left by Late Mr.Neelakandan who

is the father of first respondent and Late Mr.Loganathan and

husband of the Late Mrs.Komalaammal. Thereafter the above

suit was transferred to the file of Hon’ble District Munsif Court,

Chengalpattu and re-numbered as O.S.No.203/2004. After due

trial the suit was decreed partly as prayed and thereafter the first

respondent has filed the final decree application I.A.No.1202 of

2006 to partition the suit schedule properties by metes and

bounds wherein the husband of the first petitioner and father of

the petitioners 2 to 5 namely Late Mr.N.Loganathan was set

exparte and exparte final decree was passed on 04/10/2018 and

on coming to know the same, Late Mr.N.Loganathan filed an

application to set aside the exparte order dated 04/10/2018

passed in I.A.No.1202 of 2006 in O.S.No.203 of 2004 along with

a condone delay application I.A.No.497 of 2020 to condone the

delay of 223 days in filing the said set aside application.

 6

Case of the first respondent: -

The first respondent/plaintiff has submitted that he and his

mother filed the original suit O.S.No.88 of 1987 for partition before

the Hon’ble Sub-court, Chengalpattu. Later this suit was transferred

and renumbered as O.S.No.203 of 2004. The preliminary decree

was passed on 30/11/2004 in the main suit and the Late

Mr.N.Loganathan did not prefer any appeal hence it is presumed

that he has accepted the decree. Further in the final decree

application the Late Mr.N.Loganathan received the court notice but

did not appear before the Hon’ble Court wantonly to drag the final

decree proceedings. Hence ex-parte Final decree was passed on

04/10/2018.

2) During the pendency of the I.A.No.497 of 2020 in I.A.No.1202

of 2006 in O.S.No.203 of 2004, the petitioner Late

Mr.N.Loganathan passed away on 10/06/2022 and revision

petitioners herein were impleaded as the legal representatives of

the said Late Mr.N.Loganathan.

3) After due enquiry, the Learned District Munsif Court,

Chengalpattu by order dated 30/06/2023 was pleased to dismiss

 7

the I.A.No.497 of 2020 in I.A.No.1202 of 2006 in O.S.No.203 of

2004.

The petitioners prefer the above Memorandum of Grounds of

Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 30/06/2023

passed by the Learned District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu in

I.A.No.497 of 2020 in I.A.No.1202 of 2006 in O.S.No.203 of 2004

on the following among other:

GROUNDS

A) The order of the Learned Trial Judge is improper and against

the basic principles of equity and natural justice.

B) While deciding the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, 1963 the trial court ought to have to looked into the test of

the word “Sufficient cause” for the delay.

C) When the above test is fulfilled, the trial court ought to have

allowed the application to advance substantive justice to the

parties.

D) In the present case the deceased Late Mr.N.Loganathan has

established sufficient cause for his non-appearance under

medical ground and age factor.

 8

E) The trial court completely lost its sight while deciding this

condone delay application to the vital fact that during the

pendency of the said condone delay application the

petitioner Late Mr.N.Loganathan has passed away and his

legal heirs were impleaded. The demise of the said Late

Mr.N.Loganathan itself a res-ipsa-loquitur to show the

“sufficient cause”.

F) The learned trial judge failed to follow the well settled legal

principles to be followed in deciding the condone delay

applications laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

reported in In N.Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy [1998

(7) SCC 123] as follows:-

“The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute

between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Rules

of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They

are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics,

but seek their remedy promptly.

A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in

foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no

presumption that delays in approaching the court is always

deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient

 9

cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a

liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.

It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can

be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone

is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door

against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or

it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must

show utmost consideration to the suitor."

G) The learned trial judge failed to appreciate that in a suit for

partition all parties are considered to be plaintiffs and hence

a petition for condonation of delay should have be

considered liberally and a hyper technical view should not

have been adopted.

H) The learned trial judge erroneously held that the factual and

legal contentions raised by the petitioners have already been

considered at the time of preliminary decree. It is settled law

that a court while deciding preliminary decree only

determines the rights of the parties and all other claims will

have to be decided only in the final decree application. Such

being the settled position of law, the trial court ought to have
 10

given the petitioners an opportunity to agitate the final decree

petition.

I) The petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to raise

additional grounds, if any at the time of hearing.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble District

Munsif, Chengalpattu dated 30/06/2023 dismissing the petition

in I.A.No.497/2020 in I.A.No.1202/2006 in O.S.No.203/2004 to

condone delay of 223 days and pass such other or further

orders in the interest of justice.

Dated at Chennai this the 19thday of September, 2023.

Counsel for Petitioners

MEMO OF VALUATION

Value of Application : Incapable of Valuation

Court Fee paid : Rs.20/-

Value of Revision : Incapable of valuation

Court Fee paid : Rs.500/-

Dated at Chennai this the 19th day of September, 2023

Counsel for Petitioners

11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CRP.No. of 2023

MEMORANDUM OF CIVIL
REVISION PETITION FILED
UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA

M/s. MANOJ SREEVALSAN (841/94)

J.CHANDRASEKAR(668/13)
J.RAJASEKAR (445/18)
K.KARTHIKEYAN (4211/22)
R.KRITYA (6532/22)
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
(Mob.- 9444961944)
Email: manojsreevalsan@gmail.com