Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 46146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J
M.Balasubramaniam – Appellant
Versus
M.Ashokan – Respondent
C.R.P.(PD) No. 448 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Ponraj
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Rajasrinivas for M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar Associates
The court emphasized the importance of valid reasons for delay in legal applications and upheld discretionary powers of trial judges while ensuring the need for procedural correctness.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Revision against order condoning delay in filing to set aside ex parte decree - Defendant sought to condone delay citing ill health, initially calculated incorrectly as 642 days - Appellant challenged calculation and awareness of delaying factors - Court confirmed trial judge’s discretion to condone, but modified cost to Rs.50,000/-. (Paras 15, 21, 22)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Principles governing condonation of delay stressed - Decisions must ensure procedural fairness and not merely math on timelines, highlighting the need for valid reasoning behind delays. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on a will post the demise of their father, contested these claims against a defendant who occupied the property permissively and challenged the ex parte decree of 2014.
Findings of Court:
The application for condonation was ultimately allowed; however, the cost was raised to emphasize the ownership issue.
Issues: The main concerns included verification of the ex parte decree, illness as a valid reason for delay, and the need for an attesting witness for will validation per relevant laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the discretion of the trial judge in condoning the delay, noting no strong contestation of the illness and emphasizing timely legal recourse when property disputes exist.
Result: The costs were enhanced significantly to reflect ownership urgency.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of ownership (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. delay explanation (Para 7) |
| 3. court's discretion (Para 10 , 11 , 15) |
| 4. final cost determination (Para 22 , 23) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.06.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P.(PD)No.448 of 2022
1. M.Balasubramaniam
2. M.Sanjukumar
3. M.Jagadeesh .. Petitioners Vs.
M.Ashokan .. Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , against the fair and decreetal order dated 03.12.2021 made in I.A.No.1199 of 2017 in O.S.No.1761 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.
For the Petitioners : Mr.N.Ponraj For the Respondent : Mr.K.Rajasrinivas for M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar Associates ORDER This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.1199 of 2017 in O.S.No.1761 of 2013 dated 03.12.2021.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.
3. The civil revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit.
O.S.No.1761 of 2013 is a suit filed for the following relief:-
“a) directing the defendant herein to vacate from the suit property and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs herein by way of mandatory injunction.
b) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the cost of the suit.”
4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property belongs to one Late Maruthaveeran, their father. The said Maruthaveeran has obtained the property by way of a registered partition deed in Document No.1634/1979 dated 26.03.1979. This document is registered on the file of the Joint II Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore. The plaintiffs, however, plead that on 26.05.2000, the said Late Maruthaveeran executed a “Will” bequeathing the suit property jointly in favour of the plaintiffs. The Joint I Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore, has registered the document in Document No.250/2000 on 26.05.2000.
5. The said Maruthaveeran passed away on 11.01.2005. The plaintiffs plead that the defendant was in permissive occupation of the property and refused to vacate the property, despite several demands by the plaintiffs. Being left with no other alternative, they issued a pre-suit notice and as there was no reply from the defendant, they came forth with the suit.
6. It is not in dispute that suit summons was served upon the defendant. Despite the same, the defendant did not enter appearance. Therefore, he was set ex parte. The ex parte evidence was recorded by the Court and the suit was decreed, as prayed for, on 25.04.2014.
7. To set aside the same, the defendant presented I.A.No.1199 of 2017. The reason given by the defendant is that on 25.04.2014, he was not feeling well. Therefore, he was not in a position to instruct his counsel in time. On account of ill health, he sought condonation of delay of 642 days in filing the the application to set aside the ex parte decree.
8. The plaintiffs filed a detailed counter to the said application.
They pointed out that there was no bonafide ground to condone the delay and to set aside the ex parte decree. According to them, the total number of days is 1143 and not 642. Consequently, they sought dismissal of the application.
9. The learned Trial Judge, who took up the application for disposal, considered the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , as if it were an application to condone the delay in representing, as is clear in paragraph 5 and 6 of the impugned order. On the basis of this finding, he proceeded further and condoned the delay.
10. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are on revision before this Court.
11. I heard Mr.N.Ponraj for the civil revision petitioners and Mr.K.Raja Srinivas for M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar Associates for the respondent.
12. Mr.N.Ponraj has pointed out that the ex parte decree came to be passed on 25.04.2014, whereas, the petition to condone the delay was filed only on 16.07.2017 and therefore, the calculation gi
