1. Petitioner sought to condone a 4131-day delay in filing an application to set aside an exparte money decree. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 106306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Sounthar, J
B.P. Murugesh – Appellant
Versus
A. Muthusamy – Respondent
CRP No. 6671 of 2026 | CMP No. 28692 of 2026
Important Points
Condonation of inordinate delay in setting aside an ex-parte decree requires specific, cogent reasons; vague pleas of illness or family circumstances, especially when the party appeared in execution proceedings without immediately seeking relief, are insufficient to justify such delay.
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Condonation of Delay - Ex-parte Decree - Inordinate delay of 4131 days - Vague allegations regarding illness and family circumstances are insufficient to justify such a massive delay, and a liberal approach cannot be adopted without cogent reasons. (Para 4)
(B) Execution Proceedings - Knowledge of Decree - Appearance in execution proceedings prior to filing a set-aside petition indicates awareness of the decree; failure to act promptly thereafter further weakens the plea for condonation of delay. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the inordinate delay of 4131 days in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree could be condoned based on vague grounds of illness and family circumstances.
(B) Execution Proceedings - Knowledge of Decree - Appearance in execution proceedings prior to filing a set-aside petition indicates awareness of the decree; failure to act promptly thereafter further weakens the plea for condonation of delay. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the inordinate delay of 4131 days in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree could be condoned based on vague grounds of illness and family circumstances.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Gokul Sriram, L. Meenakshi
For the Respondents:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Gokul Sriram, L. Meenakshi
For the Respondents:
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed illness and family care responsibilities prevented engagement with counsel, while the respondent contended the delay was inordinate and unexplained. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The court found the petitioner's reasons for delay vague and noted that the petitioner had actively appeared in subsequent execution proceedings, demonstrating a failure to justify the inordinate delay. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. A party failing to provide specific, credible reasons for an inordinate delay cannot invoke the court's liberal discretion to condone the delay. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. The civil revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Para 6 )
6. Does a vague explanation for a long delay justify exercising judicial discretion to condone it?
No. When an affidavit provides only vague and nonspecific reasons for an inordinate delay, the court is not required to adopt a liberal approach, especially if the party fails to explain why they could not seek timely legal redress. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. How does the active participation of a party in execution proceedings impact a petition to set aside an exparte decree?
Participation in execution proceedings suggests the party was aware of the decree and legal status, further undermining claims that illness or incapacity prevented them from filing a timely application to set aside the exparte decree. (Para 5 )
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 4131 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.37 of 2011.
2. The respondent herein/ plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on the mortgage deed. In the suit, exparte preliminary decree was passed against the petitioner on 08.11.2011 and the petitioner filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with a petition to condone delay of 4131 days in filing the set aside petition. The above petitions were filed on 28.02.2024. The Trial Court dismissed the condone delay petition and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was prevented from illness and extraordinary circumstances at the relevant point of time and therefore, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits.
4. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition would indicate that the petitioner pleaded extraordinary circumstances for his failure to meet his counsel. It was also pleaded that the petitioner’s parents were sick persons and he was taking care of them and hence, he could not meet his counsel to give suitable instructions to file written statement. The averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition is very vague and based on the said vague allegations, the court cannot adopt a liberal approach in condoning such inordinate delay of 4131 days.
5. It is seen from the impugned order that subsequent to the exparte preliminary decree, final decree was passed and the petitioner also appeared in the execution proceedings that was initiated in the year 2023. In the impugned order, it was specifically noted by the Executing Court that the petitioner had entered appearance in the execution proceedings on 27.09.2023. However, instant applications have been filed only on 28.02.2024. Therefore, the petitioner miserably failed to explain such inordinate delay in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree and hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court.
6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
