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) 19291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J
Krithika, W/o. Ramesh, No.15/140C, Rifle Range, Kothagiri, The Nilgiris – Appellant
Versus
Senthil Kumari, W/o. Pandiyan, No.6/93, Near Vinayagar Kovil Street, Gudalur, The Nilgiris – Respondent
CMP No. 5183 of 2026 | SA Sr No.208330 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. B.Kumarasamy

Delay in filing second appeal without sufficient justification leads to dismissal.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed to condone a 1505-day delay in filing a second appeal against a decree for injunction. The Court noted that the petitioner was aware of proceedings initiated by the respondent after a lengthy delay, concluding that no sufficient reason was given to justify the late application. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the second appeal was rejected at the SR stage. There shall be no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. civil miscellaneous petition filed to condone delay. (Para 2)
2. petitioner claims knowledge of execution petition prompts appeal. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court found no sufficient reason for delay. (Para 5)

ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of

1505 days delay in filing the second appeal.

2. The respondent herein obtained a decree for injunction in O.S.No.24 of

2017 dated 26.09.2019 restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit property. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court. The first appellate court affirmed the said judgment and decree in A.S.No.03 of 2021 on 30.07.2021 with regard to prohibitory injunction alone. The present second appeal has been filed only on 15.12.2025 with a delay of 1505 days.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, it was stated by the petitioner that the respondent filed execution petition in E.P.No.4 of 2025 and after receipt of the notice in the said execution petition, the petitioner acquired knowledge about the ill intention of the respondent and hence, he decided to file the present appeal.

4. As per the Limitation Act, the petitioner has to file the present second appeal within the 90 days from the date of judgment of the first appellate court, subject to exclusion of time taken for getting certified copy of the judgment and decree. In the case on hand, the petitioner made averments in the affidavit that the respondent filed Execution Petition only after 4 years and therefore, he decided to file the instant second appeal, after 4 years.

5. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decree for permanent injunction passed by the trial court, as confirmed by the first appellate court, he should have decided to challenge the same immediately. Merely because the respondent filed execution petition to execute the decree after 4 years, the petitioner will not get any extension of time for filing second appeal. Therefore, the petitioner has not given any convincing reason for condoning such a long delay of 1505 days in filing the second appeal.

6. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

Consequently, the second appeal in SA SR No.208330 of 2025 is rejected at the SR stage itself. There shall be no order as to costs.

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