State of Tamil Nadu vs Anbalagan - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48348

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, M. Jothiraman, JJ
State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
Anbalagan – Respondent
C.M.P.(MD)No.6103 of 2026|W.A.(MD)No.SR 36730 of 2026

Important Points

An inordinate delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned as a matter of right without providing sufficient and satisfactory justification or cause for the delay.

Subject

Civil Law - Limitation

Act Referred

Limitation Act, 1963: S.5

Headnote

The present matter concerns a petition filed under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone an inordinate delay of 867 days in filing an appeal. The appellants attributed the delay to files getting mixed up and misplaced. The Court observed that while a liberal approach is typically adopted for condonation, it requires justifiable reasons and satisfactory particulars, which were absent in the provided materials. The core issue addressed is whether a routine administrative lapse constitutes sufficient cause to condone a significant delay. The Court reasoned that in the absence of an acceptable explanation, condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right, particularly when the law mandates strict adherence to time constraints. Furthermore, it was noted that similar appeals against the subject order had already been dismissed. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed and the connected Writ Appeal is rejected.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Venkatesh

Table of Content
1. failure to provide satisfactory justification for significant filing delays leads to dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. condonation of delay requires sufficient cause and is not a matter of right. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)

PRAYER in C.M.P.(MD)No.6103 of 2026:- Miscellaneous Petition – filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 867 days in filing the above writ appeal.

PRAYER in W.A.(MD)No.SR 36730 of 2026:- Writ Appeal – filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 06.11.2023 passed in W.P.(MD)No.19330 of 2023 and allow the writ petition.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Venkatesh Counsel for the State

ORDER

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

This petition is filed seeking to condone the delay of 867 days in filing the writ appeal.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3.The reason assigned for the delay is that the paper got mixed up with other bundles and got misplaced. Except the above, no other reasons have been assigned.

4.Ordinarily, the Court adopts a liberal approach while considering petitions for condonation of delay. At the same time, for extending such a liberal approach, there must be justifiable reasons. In the present case, the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking condonation of such a huge delay is bereft of sufficient and satisfactory particulars explaining the inordinate delay. In the absence of any acceptable explanation, condonation of such delay cannot be sought as a matter of right.

5.When the law mandates that a particular activity shall be performed within a stipulated time, the same cannot be diluted. When there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the said delay cannot be condoned as a matter of right.

6.We are not satisfied with the reasons for condoning the delay. Further, the Writ Appeal is filed challenging the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.19330 of 2023 etc., batch, dated 06.11.2023 and a batch of writ appeal filed as against the very same order, has been dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.

7.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.A.(MD) SR No.36730 of 2026 is rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs.