Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Sounthar, J
Hemalatha – Appellant
Versus
M.Muthulakshmi – Respondent
Rev.APLC(MD)Sr.No.89334 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Padmakumar for Mr.Sivathilakar S
Communication gap insufficient cause to condone 901-day delay in review filing.
Headnote:First Paragraph: The petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeks condonation of 901 days delay in filing review against judgment dated 27.02.2023 in Second Appeal, where copies were delivered on 24.07.2023. Court found no sufficient cause due to vague claim of communication gap between petitioners and counsel. Court determined the delay unexplained and unjustified. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as whether communication gap constitutes sufficient cause for condoning 901 days delay. Ratio: Mere communication gap insufficient for huge delay when copies were promptly applied for and received; petitioners failed to explain lapse post-delivery. Third Paragraph: Civil Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; Review Application rejected at SR stage.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. timeline of judgment delivery and copy receipt (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petition dismissed; review rejected at sr stage (Para 3) |
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking to condone the delay of 901 days in filing Review Application.
2.It is seen from the records, the judgment and decree in the Second Appeal was passed on 27.02.2023. The copy application was made on 28.02.2023 and copies were made ready on 31.05.2023. It is also seen the copies were delivered to appellants on 24.07.2023. In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, it was stated by the petitioners that petitioners 1 and 2 were out of station and hence, they could not contact the counsel and due to the communication gap there was a delay.
3.As mentioned earlier, immediately after disposal of the Second Appeal, the copy application was immediately filed on 28.02.2023 and the copies were made ready on 31.05.2023. However, the Review application has been filed by the petitioners only on 15.10.2025. The delay is 901 days. The vague reason given by the petitioners is the communication gap between the petitioners and the Advocate. Communication gap cannot be the sufficient cause for condoning the huge delay of 901 days. Since, the petitioners failed to make out any sufficient cause to condone the delay, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. The Review Application is rejected in SR stage itself.
