Madras HC Lets Sisters Revive Partition Suit After 18 Months Without Proper Amended Plaint, On ₹15,000 Costs

The appellants, plaintiffs in a partition suit concerning 18 properties, sought a 2/6th share.

After the Trial Court allowed an amendment to the plaint, the plaintiffs did not file a proper amended plaint. The suit, pending since 2016, was dismissed for default on 15 June 2022. The plaintiffs’ application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to restore the suit was filed within the prescribed 30-day period but dismissed because the amended plaint remained defective and had not been properly filed for over one and a half years. The plaintiffs appealed against that dismissal.

Order IX Rule 9 CPC provides the procedural basis for seeking restoration of a suit dismissed for default; an appeal against the impugned order was brought under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC.

The Court treated the parties’ co-ownership and the need to determine their rights in a partition suit as grounds supporting an opportunity to proceed, while recognising that restoration could be conditioned on costs and directions for prompt disposal. No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court recognised that the plaintiffs’ failure to file a proper amended plaint for more than one and a half years, in a suit pending since 2016, justified the Trial Court’s concern.

Nevertheless, because the dispute concerned co-owners’ rights in a partition suit, the Court considered that those rights should be determined in the pending proceedings. It therefore allowed the plaintiffs another opportunity, balancing that relief against the defendants’ interests through costs and strict case-management directions.

Upon proof of payment, the Trial Court must restore the suit and dispose of it within six months from payment. The Trial Court was also directed to hear the case at least twice a week and avoid further adjournments if the plaintiffs delay proceedings. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.