Madras High Court
S.Susheeladevi vs S.Sudha on 25 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 16.10.2025 Order pronounced on : 25.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP.No.3524 of 2025
& CMP.No.19027 of 2025
S.Susheeladevi ... Petitioner
Vs.
S.Sudha ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 07.03.2025 in I.A.No.409
of 2013 in unnumbered AS CFR No.11030 of 2012 on the file of the
Principal District Court, Erode.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Ganesh
ORDER
The defendant, who suffered a decree in O.S.No.331 of 2007 and filed the First Appeal, along with an application for condonation of delay of 371 days, is the revision petitioner.
1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:26 pm )
2.I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.R.Ganesh, learned counsel for the respondent.
3.Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent was contested by the petitioner and a decree came to be passed on 16.12.2010 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Erode. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, has preferred the First Appeal, though belatedly. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was that the petitioner's mother was suffering from brain clot and she had been admitted in the hospital and she also underwent a surgery in December 2010 and that thereafter, the petitioner's mother suffers from Dementia and the petitioner, being the only daughter of her mother, had to take complete care and therefore, the petitioner could not concentrate on the legal issues.
4.Mr.N.Manoharan, would therefore state that the Appellate Court ought to have taken a liberal view, by condoning the delay of 371 days, which is not only not inordinate, but also sufficiently explained by the revision petitioner. He would also place reliance on the decision of the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:26 pm ) Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the length of delay is immaterial and it is only acceptability of the explanation which is relevant and that Section 5 should receive liberal construction so as to advance justice.
5.Per contra, Mr.R.Ganesh, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the suit was decreed on 16.12.2010 and though the petitioner sought to explain the delay by contending that the petitioner's mother had to undergo surgery in December 2010, the records made available to the Court in Ex.X1, being a discharge summary, clearly revealed that the mother of the petitioner was discharged even in February 2010. He would further submit that there is no documentary evidence to establish that the mother underwent any surgery in December 2010 or that she suffered from Dementia thereafter, which prevented the petitioner from filing the suit. He would further state that despite having suffered a decree for specific performance, the respondent has proceeded to dispose of the suit property to third parties in and by sale deeds 28.10.2011, 20.08.2011 and 20.09.2012. He would therefore state that the conduct of the petitioner clearly shows 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:26 pm ) lack of respect for judicial orders and such a litigant cannot seek discretion to be exercised in her favour. He would also state that the Court has already executed registered sale deed in favour of the respondent. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.
6.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the records, including the order impugned in the revision.
7.Admittedly, the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent was contested by the petitioner and ultimately, the suit came to be decreed on 16.12.2010. Contending that the petitioner is the only daughter of her mother and that her mother was suffering from brain clot and had to undergo surgery in December 2010 and subsequently, the petitioner's mother was suffering from Dementia and cumulative effect of all these led to the delay in filing the First Appeal, the delay was sought to be condoned.
4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:26 pm )
8.However, it is seen from the discharge summary in Ex.X1 that the petitioner's mother was admitted into the hospital on 09.02.2010 and discharged soon thereafter on 22.02.2010. If really, according to the petitioner, the petitioner's mother underwent a major surgery in December 2010, nothing prevented the petitioner from filing the relevant documents to substantiate the same. There is also nothing on record to show that the petitioner's mother suffered from Dementia and that therefore, the petitioner could not file the appeal in time. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the conduct of the petitioner in disposing of the suit property by way of four registered sale deed to various third party purchasers, it is also a strong circumstance that needs to be taken note of by the Court.
9.In an application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has to make out sufficient cause for not being able to file the appeal in time and there must be no lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner. On one hand, the petitioner contends that she was not able to even contact her lawyer to file the appeal, because of the ill-health of her mother, but however, strangely, the petitioner has gone to the Sub-registrar's office on at 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:26 pm ) least three occasions, after suffering a decree, which was to her knowledge and disposed of the suit property to third party purchasers.
10.Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner that she was unable to leave her mother alone, in order to even meet her lawyer and instruct the lawyer to prefer an appeal is clearly a false and invented version, only for the purposes of the condonation of delay application. There is absolute lack of banafides on the part of the revision petitioner, who has suffered a decree for specific performance and subsequent to the decree, she has chosen to encumber the suit property, with a view to defeat the entitlement of the respondent under the decree. Further, there is absolutely no proof adduced to substantiate the claim that in December 2010, the petitioner's mother had underwent a surgery and that subsequently, she suffered from Dementia.
11.Even if the petitioner had been able to demonstrate the same, even then her own conduct in going to the Sub-registrar's office to execute sale deeds in favour of the third parties, that too, conveying the suit property after the decree for specific performance have been passed would only disentitle the petitioner from exercise of any discretion in her favour. I do 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:26 pm ) not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings of the trial Court in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has not made out sufficient cause, requiring the delay of 371 days to be condoned. There is no merit in the revision.
12.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.10.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order Index : Yes / No ata To The Principal District Court, Erode.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:26 pm ) P.B. BALAJI,J.
ata Pre-delivery order made in CRP.No.3524 of 2025 & CMP.No.19027 of 2025 25.10.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:26 pm )