2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 117517
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.C. Selvam – Appellant
Versus
V.S. Venkatraman – Respondent
OSA Nos.82 & 83 of 2025
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-10-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR OSA Nos.82 & 83 of 2025 CNR: {HCMA012146332024}
K.C.Selvam, Managing Director, M/s.Kondan Construction Private Limited, Having Office at No.30/23, First Floor, Suganthy Complex, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Chairman, Mr.V.S.Venkatraman, M/s.Ramani Realtors (P) Limited, No.1680, Trichy Road, Coimbatore 641 045.
2. The Managing Director Mr.V.Subramanian, M/s.Ramani Realtors (P) Limited, No.1680, Trichy Road, Coimbatore 641 045.
3. The Executive Director, Dharma Subramanian, M/s.Ramani Realtors (P) Limited, No. 1680, Trichy Road, Coimbatore 641 045.
4. The Project Co-ordinator, Mr.K.Sivakumar, M/s.Ramani Realtors (P) Limited, No.1680, Trichy Road, Coimbatore 641 045.
5. The General Manager (Finance and Accounts)
Mr.J.Panchapakesan, M/s.Ramani Realtors (P) Limited, No.1680, Trichy Road, Coimbatore-641045. also having office at Old No.5, New No.13, Deivaseghamani Street, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
##PAGE2##..Respondent(s)
Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the impugned common order dated 03.09.2024 in A.Nos.3995 and 3996 of 2023 in C.S.Diary No.95746 of 2019 on the file of Original Side of this Court.
For Appellant(s): Ms.Hemalatha for M/s.Swaminathan Law Associates For Respondent(s): No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by GK. Muthukumaar J.)
These Original Side Appeals have been preferred by the appellant, challenging the common order dated 3.9.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the appellant's applications filed seeking to set aside the common order of the Learned Master dated 2.12.2022, refusing to condone the delay of 1161 days in representing the plaint and also to condone the delay of 1181 days in paying the deficit court fees.
##PAGE3##2. The appellant had filed a suit for recovery of money to the tune of about Rs.2.5 crores from the defendants, due to non-clearance of bills by the respondents to the appellant, arising out of a contract entered into between them.
3. We find that the appellant had filed two applications, one in A.No.5227 of 2022 and other in A.No.5228 of 2022 before the Learned Master. Application No.5227 of 2022 was filed seeking to condone the delay of 1161 days in representing the plaint, while Application No.5228 of 2022 was filed seeking to condone the delay of 1181 days in paying the deficit court fees. However, both the applications came to be dismissed by the Learned Master on merits.
4. Against the dismissal of these applications by the Learned Master, the appellant had filed A.Nos.3995 and 3996 of 2023 before the Learned Single Judge of this Court. A.No.3995 of 2023 had been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 02.12.2022 passed in A.No.5227 of 2022 in C.S.D.No.95746 of 2019. This application pertains to condoning the delay of 1161 days in representing the plaint.
##PAGE4##5. Similarly, A.No.3996 of 2023 was filed by the appellant seeking to set aside the order dated 2.12.2022 passed in A.No.5228 of 2022 in C.S.D.No.95746 of 2019. This application pertains to condoning the delay of 1181 days in paying the deficit Court fees. The Learned Single Judge considered both these applications on merits and dismissed them.
6. Against the said dismissal, the appellant has preferred these two Original Side Appeals before this Court. O.S.A.No.82 of 2025 had been filed seeking to set aside the common order dated 3.9.2024 in A.No.3995 of 2023 in C.S.D.No.95746 of 2019. This Original Side Appeal pertains to condoning the delay in representing the plaint. O.S.A.No.83 of 2025 had been filed seeking to set aside the common order dated 3.9.2024 in A.No.3996 of 2023 in C.S.D.No.95746 of 2019. This Original Side Appeal pertains to condoning the delay in paying the deficit court fees.
7.