Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
Padasaib, (Died), Saroja Ammal – Appellant
Versus
Saraswathi, (Died), Kaliyamurthy – Respondent
ORDER :
P.B.BALAJI, J.
This revision has been filed challenging the order passed in E.A.No.37 of 2022 dated 04.02.2025 in E.P.No.44 of 2002, in and whereby the delay of 573 days in filing the application to restore E.P.No.44 of 2002, has been allowed on payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to the respondents, that is the revision petitioners.
2. I have heard Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.T.M.Naveen, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the executing Court did not have the power to exercise, in the first place, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as admittedly the order was passed beyond the period of 30 days, which alone can be condoned under relevant provisions of Order XXI of CPC. He would also rely on the decision of this Court in R.Rasappan Vs. D.Rajalakshmi , reported in 2025 SCC Online Mad 4068, where this Court has held that the executing Court cannot entertain an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if it filed beyond the period of 30 days from the date of the order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also place reliance on the decision of t
Applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are typically inapplicable to proceedings under Order XXI of CPC unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
The Limitation Act applies to execution proceedings, and a party can seek to condone delay in filing applications related to such proceedings.
A court must condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before considering applications under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to ensure jurisdictional compliance.
Power to condone the delay, but whether delay should be condoned or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case
Point of Law : Willful default, negligent attitude or casual approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained.
A party seeking condonation of delay must show sufficient cause; mere procedural deficiencies in prior judgments do not automatically justify delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
