Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.Justice P.B.Balaji, J
M/s.Nanchil Infrastructure Private Limited, Rep. by its Director, Mr.R.Vijayakumar – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Sikora Salavador International Limited, Rep. By its Managing Director, Mr.S.Ramkakrishnan – Respondent
CRP. No.2863 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Ramakrishnan for M/S.ARK Law Associates
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Gauthamkumar
Timely prosecution of suits is critical, and undue delays must be sufficiently justified; negligence is not an acceptable ground for condoning delay in commercial matters.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act - Condonation of Delay - The petitioners sought to condone a delay of 813 days in filing for restoration of a suit dismissed for non-prosecution. The court examined the reasons provided, including change of directorship and lack of awareness, and determined that negligence and delay were unacceptable. The court upheld the Commercial Court's finding that no valid ground was presented for condonation. (Paras 1, 16, 18)
(B) Order IX CPC - The court discussed procedural correctness concerning invocation of rules for setting aside ex parte decrees, finding that the proper rule had not been invoked but deemed it unnecessary to delve into it at this stage. (Paras 12)
Facts of the case:
The original suit was filed in 2011, transferred through various courts, and ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioners' negligence in following up.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled against the revision petitioners' application to condone delay, affirming the lower court's decision in light of established precedent emphasizing timely prosecution in commercial matters.
Issues: The core issue was the validity of reasons given for the long delay in prosecuting the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of maintaining prosecutorial diligence in commercial matters and determined that the petitioners had not provided sufficient justification for the delay encountered.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis for seeking condonation of delay in civil proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details regarding the delay and circumstances surrounding the dismissal. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion on the implications of negligence and applicable legal standards. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's observations on prior cases and the necessity of timely actions. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. final court ruling based on the established standards and rationale. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. outcome of the civil revision petition. (Para 18) |
O R D E R
The revision arises out of the order dismissing an Application for condonation of delay of 813 days in filing the Application for restoration of the suit before the Commercial Court.
2. Heard Mr.N.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for M/s.ARK Law Associates, appearing for the petitioners and Mr.A.Goutham Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Ramakrishnan would contend that the suit has been filed originally before this Court in the year 2011 and subsequently, it has been transferred to the City Civil Court in the year 2019 and from there to the Commercial Court in the year 2022. He would also state that the contesting respondents had also filed a suit for recovery of money against the revision petitioners and the said suit was decreed as exparte in the year 2013. He would also state that on coming to know of the exparte decree, steps have been taken to set aside the same and the same is pending.
4. The learned counsel would further state that the revision petitioners were unaware of the dismissal of the suit and only on getting notice in the execution proceedings filed by the contesting respondents, in respect of the suit filed by them, the revision petitioners was even aware of the exparte decree and also the dismissal of the suit filed by the revision petitioners. It is the contention of the Mr.N.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay has been properly explained in the Application for condonation of delay, where it has been clearly set out that there was change in Directorship and there was no occasion for the present Directors to follow up the suit. He would also state that no prejudice would be caused to the contesting respondents, since for nine long years written statement was not even filed. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed, by condoning the delay and giving an opportunity to the revision petitioners to prosecute the suit on merits.
5. Per contra, Mr.A.Gautham Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents would state that both the suits, that is the suit filed by the revision petitioners as well as by the respondents were filed in the year 2011. He would state that written statement was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the present suit when it was pending before the City Civil Court, even before the suit was transferred to the Commercial Court. He would point out to the continuous absence of the revision petitioners, for 16 hearings before the Commercial Court itself and even earlier on many occasions, before the City Civil Court.
6. Mr.Gauthamkumar, learned counsel for the respondents would further state that in a Commercial Suit, such huge and inordinate delay is fatal and even if cause has been shown to be sufficient or bonafide, considering the objects of the Commercial Courts Act, the condonation of the delay has to be refused. The learned counsel would also point out that the petition has been filed invoking Order IX Rule 4 CPC to set aside the exparte decree and the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He would contend that only under Order IX Rule 9 CPC would apply.
7. Further, Mr.Gautham Kumar would also contend that that even in the Execution Proceedings, the revision petitioner did not choose to appear and only when arrest warrant was issued, along with delay Applications, steps were taken, which clearly shows that the revision petitioners have been negligent t
