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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 5645

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice P.B. BALAJI
P.KRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THIRUPATHI – Respondent



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Order reserved on : 09.01.2026 Order pronounced on : 30.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

C.M.P.No.765 of 2024

in C.R.P.SR.No.156463 of 2023

P.Krishnan

S/o.Pachiyapa Gounder (Late) ... Petitioner

Vs.

Thirupathi

S/o.Govindhasamy ... Respondent

Prayer in C.M.P.No.765 of 2024: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed to

condone the delay of 450 days in filing the above Civil Revision Petition.

Prayer in C.R.P.SR.No.156463 of 2023: Civil Revision Petition filed

underSection 115 of C.P.C. to set aside the order and decretal order in

I.A.No.138 of 2021 in O.S.No.148 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate

Court, Palacode, dated 14.06.2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muruganantham

For Respondent : Mr.K.Ramu

for Mr.P.M.Jayachandran

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 03:53:26 pm )

##PAGE2##

ORDER

The Revision Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.148 of 2017, on

the file of the Subordinate Court, Palacode. The defendant was set exparte

and an application was filed in I.A.No.138 of 2021 for setting aside the

exparte decree, along with an application for condonation of delay of 949

days. The said application came to be dismissed, on enquiry, by the

Subordiante Court, Palacode, in and by an order dated 14.06.2022.

Challenging the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed,

albeit with a delay of 450 days.

2.I have heard Mr.M.Muruganantham, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.K.Ramu, for Mr.P.M.Jayachandran, counsel for the

respondent.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a

coolie and his home town is at Gundankootai Village, however, he is

working at Bangalore. His counsel had written to the petitioner calling upon

him to be present before the Court on 18.06.2018, however, the petitioner

did not receive the said letter, which resulted in the exparte decree being

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 03:53:26 pm )

##PAGE3##

passed. The learned counsel would further state that the signature in the

alleged promissory note is denied and fair opportunity has to be given to the

petitioner / defendant to contest the Suit on merits, and so far as the delay

before this Court, the petitioner’s counsel states that the petitioner was bed

ridden and was recovering from jaundice, and therefore he was not in a

position to prefer the Revision in time. The learned counsel therefore prays

for the delay being condoned.

4.Per contra, Mr.Ramu, learned counsel for the respondent would

submit that there is absolutely no reason assigned by the petitioner for

condonation of delay of more than one year. He would also point out that

even before the trial Court, at various stages, there have been attempts to

protract the proceedings. Inviting my attention to various orders passed

before the trial Court, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend

that despite several opportunities and indulgence granted by the trial Court,

the petitioner has not availed of the same and he is bent on protracting the

proceedings, to defeat the decree granted in favour of the respondent.

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 03:53:26 pm )

##PAGE4##

5.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on either side.

I have also gone through the affidavit filed in support of the petition filed for

condonation of delay as well as the counter affidavit filed by the respondent.

6.As rightly contended by Mr.Ramu, learned counsel for the

respondent, I am unable to see sufficient cause being shown or made out in

the affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay of 450 days, except

that the petitioner is aged about 60 years and he was affected with jaundice,

and therefore could not prefer the Revision in time.

7.Even before the trial Court, the petitioner has suffered an exparte

decree for recovery of money and the petitioner was aware of the same

despite the application filed to set aside the exparte decree, with an

application to condone the delay. The p

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