Madras High Court
M/S. Dba Technology Pvt. Limited vs Venugopal Ambadi on 6 January, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
C.M.P.No.26414 of 2024 &
Appeal (CAD) No.SR 139364 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
C.M.P.No.26414 of 2024
&
Appeal (CAD) No.SR 139364 of 2024
1. M/s. DBA Technology Pvt. Limited
No.71, 1 Cross
BTM Layout II Stage
Bangalore 560 068.
2. Dr.S.Mahalingam .. Appellants
Vs.
Venugopal Ambadi .. Respondent
Prayer : Appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the order
dated 05.12.2022 passed in Commercial O.S.No.923 of 2022.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Baskar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Balamurali
For M/s. Shivakumar and Suresh
__________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.26414 of 2024 &
Appeal (CAD) No.SR 139364 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered
by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
This is an application for condoning the delay of 405 days. In the
affidavit in support, second petitioner is stated to be 69 years of age,
whereas, in further affidavit dated 09.12.2024, second petitioner claims to
be 72 years of age. Within a span of two months, the age of second
petitioner is changed by three years. The reason we mentioned it is to show
how serious second petitioner is in prosecuting the appeal.
2. As there was absolutely no explanation in the affidavit dated
17.10.2024 for the delay in filing the appeal, by an order dated 25.11.2024,
we gave an opportunity to file a further affidavit. This opportunity was
given at the request of petitioners' counsel when we expressed our view that
we were not happy with the contents of the affidavit in support.
3. In the further affidavit in support dated 09.12.2024, second
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.26414 of 2024 &
Appeal (CAD) No.SR 139364 of 2024
petitioner, as noted earlier, states that he is 72 years of age and suffering
from chronic heart disease since 2013. Second petitioner has undergone
first surgery on 18.03.2013 and second surgery on 26.11.2018, both much
before the decree dated 05.12.2022. Second petitioner further states that he
is always out of jurisdiction and further due to his senior age and health
issues and undergoing continuous medical treatment, there has been a
delay of 405 days. A bald statement is made in paragraph 8 that second
petitioner has undergone surgeries on 06.10.2022, 30.05.2023 and
02.07.2024 and claims to have undergone periodical complete medical
check up. Second petitioner claims to have enclosed documents to prove the
same in the typed set. There are no documents annexed except a certificate
dated 02.07.2024 issued by one Cardea Multispeciality Clinic and
Diagnostic Centre. In the certificate, the age of second petitioner is given as
67 years old. Moreover, it is noted that second petitioner can walk 3 to 5
km per day.
4. We are, therefore, not satisfied with the explanation given for the
delay of 405 days in filing the appeal. On the contrary, we find that
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.26414 of 2024 &
Appeal (CAD) No.SR 139364 of 2024
respondent is 78 years old age and we would agree with him to the extent
that the appeal has been filed only after respondent filed Commercial
Execution Petition before CCH-85, City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
5. In the circumstances, the application for condoning the delay is
rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands rejected at SR stage.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ) (SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.)
06.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.26414 of 2024 &
Appeal (CAD) No.SR 139364 of 2024
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
(kpl)
C.M.P.No.26414 of 2024 &
Appeal (CAD) No.SR 139364 of 2024
06.01.2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
