SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Anita Sumanth, C.Kumarappan, JJ
Shekar @ Sasi – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, O/o. Collectorate, Kanyakumari District – Respondent
C.M.P(MD)No.3784 of 2024 | W.A(MD)SR.No.14475 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus
For the Respondents: Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Mr.Arun Jeyathram for Mr.H.Velavadhas

A delay in filing an appeal must be justified with adequate evidence, mere assertions are insufficient to condone significant delays.

Headnote:This judgment concerns a petition for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act involving a delay of 321 days. The court found the petition unsupported by adequate justification of medical or financial issues despite the petitioner's claims. The detailed counter by the respondents highlighted the absence of justification. The petition was dismissed in limine, resulting in the dismissal of the connected writ appeal. The appeal was filed against an order dated 09.03.2023. No costs were awarded.

Table of Content
1. petition for condonation of delay filed. (Para 1)
2. absence of sufficient justification for delay. (Para 2)
3. court decision to dismiss the petition. (Para 4)

PRAYER in W.A(MD)SR.No.14475 of 2024 :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to call for the records relating to the order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.4138 of 2023 dated 09.03.2023 and set aside the same and consequently allow this writ appeal.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan (R1 to R4)

Special Government Pleader Mr.Arun Jeyathram (R5)

for Mr.H.Velavadhas

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.) This is a petition seeking condonation of delay of 321 days in filing the writ appeal.

2. The petition for condonation of delay is absolutely bereft of any justification. In the affidavit, the petitioner states that the order was passed on 09.03.2023, as against which, writ appeal was sought to be filed and certified copy was applied in time. Thereafter, he states, in vague and general terms that he had been suffering from medical ailments and financial crisis and hence, was unable to contact the counsel immediately.

3. We are not persuaded to condone the significant delay of

321 days on the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner, unsupported by any records whatsoever.

4. A detailed counter has also been filed objecting to the delay on the ground that no justification has been set out for the same, with which position we concur. Hence, this civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed in limine. Connected writ appeal is dismissed even at SR stage. No costs.

[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,]

11.11.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes sm DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

AND C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

sm To

1. The District Collector, O/o. Collectorate, Kanyakumari District.

2. The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil,Kanyakumari District.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Colachel Sub Division, Kanyakumari District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

C.M.P(MD)No.3784 of 2024 in W.A(MD)SR.No.14475 of 2024

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top