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) 18179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
L.Damris Lydia Janet – Appellant
Versus
Malliga – Respondent
C.M.P.(MD)No.15082 of 2025 | W.A.(MD)SR. No. 11884 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Chellapandian, J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader, Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan

The court holds that a delay in filing an appeal may only be condoned if sufficient cause is shown, emphasizing the necessity of bona fide reasons.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: This case involved an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Facts of the Case: The petitioner sought to condone a delay of 466 days in filing a writ appeal, citing the time taken to receive the order copy.

Findings of Court:
The Court found there was no sufficient cause shown for the delay and therefore was not inclined to condone it.

Issues: The main issue was whether the delay of 466 days could be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without a bona fide reason, the delay shall not be condoned.

Result: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. delay in filing appeal necessitates a sufficient cause. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court emphasizes bona fide reasons for condonation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. delay not condoned without justified reasons. (Para 5)
4. final order dismissing the petition. (Para 6)

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

This petition is filed seeking to condone the delay of 466 days in filing the above writ appeal.

2. The reason assigned in the affidavit is that though the order was passed on 03.10.2023, the order copy was made ready only on

23.01.2025. Therefore, there is a delay of 466 days.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 4 submits that the State has preferred an appeal against the said order and the petitioner has also appeared in the said appeal, which is not disputed by the petitioner. Hence, he opposed to allow this petition.

4. Normally, when an application for condonation of delay is filed, the Court is in favour of the party where the party shows some bona fide reasons, which are sufficient to allow the petition. When the party comes to the Court without any bona fide for the sake of filing of writ appeal by making certain allegations as a matter of right, the delay may not be condoned.

5. This Court is of the view that there is no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay. Hence, we are not inclined to condone the delay.

6. With these above observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Writ Appeal is also rejected at the S.R.stage itself.

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