Misplacement of certified copies and vague health issues insufficient for condoning 1291-day delay in second appeal.

Headnote:First Paragraph: Relevant law under Section 100 CPC for second appeal and limitation provisions for condonation of delay. Suit O.S.No.116/2008 decreed by trial court, confirmed in A.S.No.4/2020 on 23.01.2021. Appellants sought condonation of 1291 days delay citing misplacement of certified copies and health issues. Court found misplacement and vague health claims insufficient for condonation. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as whether sufficient cause shown for inordinate delay. Ratio: Misplacement of copies not ground for over three years delay; appellants could have reapplied immediately; no specifics on health issues provided. Last Paragraph: Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; Second Appeal rejected at SR stage.

Table of Content
1. details of second appeal and condonation petition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. reasons for delay: misplacement and health. (Para 3)
3. vague excuses insufficient; petition dismissed. (Para 5 , 6)

PRAYER : Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Hosur, dated 23.01.2021 in A.S.No.4 of 2020, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Denkanikottai dated 24.04.2019 in O.S.No.116 of 2008.

For Appellant(s): G.M.Ananthakumar

ORDER

The Second Appeal is filed to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Hosur, dated 23.01.2021 in A.S.No.4 of 2020, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Denkanikottai dated 24.04.2019 in O.S.No.116 of 2008.

2. The Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 1291 days in filing the above Second Appeal.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the Miscellaneous Petition, it was stated by the petitioners / appellants that the certified copies of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court were misplaced by the first petitioner / first appellant. Thereafter, the first petitioner suffered some health issues and therefore, there was a delay in filing the above Second Appeal. 4. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the First Appellate Court disposed the First Appeal on 23.01.2021. The petitioners / appellants filed copy application on 27.01.2021 and same was made ready on 18.02.2021. If the first petitioner misplaced the certified copies, the petitioners / appellants could have immediately applied for fresh certified copies and filed this Second Appeal.

Misplacement of the certified copies cannot be a ground to condone the delay of more than three years.

5. Further, the petitioners/appellants, in the affidavit, have not mentioned what was the health issue suffered by the first petitioner and the treatment taken by her. The vague allegation as if the first petitioner suffered from health issues and the papers were misplaced, cannot be a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 1291 days.

6. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed and accordingly, the Second Appeal is rejected in the SR stage itself. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASS. Sounthar, JSavithramma W/O. Late Venkatasami Reddy – AppellantVersusRagunanthan S/O. Late Srinivasan Reddy – RespondentCMP.No.10401 of 2026|O.S.No.116 of 2008|A.S.No.4 of 2020

Misplacement of certified copies and vague health issues insufficient for condoning 1291-day delay in second appeal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Sounthar, J
Savithramma W/O. Late Venkatasami Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Ragunanthan S/O. Late Srinivasan Reddy – Respondent
CMP.No.10401 of 2026|O.S.No.116 of 2008|A.S.No.4 of 2020