Madras High Court
Prakash Chand Lalwani vs Rasal Kawar on 17 July, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP.No.2238 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 17.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRP.No.2238 of 2025
Prakash Chand Lalwani ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Rasal Kawar
2.Manmull Kattaria (Since Deceased)
3.Dharmendra Kattaria
4.M.Dharmichand Jain
5.M.Suresh
6.Indra
7.Sangeetha
8.Sapna
(Since the second respondent died, his legal heirs, respondents 4 to 8
are brought on record as per memo dated 26.06.2025 filed
by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3)
... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set
aside the order dated 02.12.2024 made in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in AS.SR.No.9023 of
2024 on the file of the I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
Page 1 / 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
CRP.No.2238 of 2025
For petitioner : Mr.F.Ukkash
for Mr.Anirudh A Sriram
For respondents : Mr.G.Saravanan for R1 & R3
R2- Died
ORDER
Memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that
the second respondent died on 10.03.2025 and seeks to record the death of the
second respondent and his legal heirs. The said memo is taken on record.
2. Challenging the impugned order rejecting the application filed to
condone the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree
dated 28.02.2024 passed in O.S.No.2295 of 2014.
3. The suit has been originally filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner in
O.S.No.2294 of 2014 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, VI Assistant Court
(FAC) under Order XXXVII of CPC for recovery of sum of Rs.7,20,000/- together
with interest on Rs.4,50,000/- at 24% per annum, later it was converted to regular
suit and the suit was tried. The suit has been dismissed vide decree and judgment
28.02.2024. An appeal was filed as against the judgment and decree dated
28.02.2024 along with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
I.A.No.1 of 2024, wherein, it is the stand of the petitioner that he received the
certified copy only on 06.06.2024 and further, owing to old age ailments, he could
not file the appeal immediately. The said application was opposed by the
respondents on the ground that no documents are filed to substantiate their alleged
illness and sought dismissal of the application. The appellate Court vide impugned
order dated 02.12.2024 had dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the
present revision has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is old
aged and suffering from various old age ailments and the certified copy was
received only on 06.06.2024, therefore, the appeal could not be filed immediately.
Further, he has a good case on merits, if opportunity is given, he will succeed his
case in the appeal. Hence, seeks for liberal approach.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has
not properly explained each delay and no sufficient cause is shown. Thus, seeks
for dismissal of this revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
7. The right of appeal is a substantive and valuable legal remedy, forming
an integral part of the adjudicatory process. Court must remain cautious not to
defeat such rights on mere technical grounds, particularly where refusal to
condone delay may result in miscarriage of justice. It is relevant to note that
though the party has not established sufficient cause, while deciding whether there
is sufficient cause or not, the Court must also bear in mind the object of doing
substantive justice. The conduct of the party in the present case though is not
appealing to the satisfaction of this Court, the same cannot be a ground to take
away the substantive right. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Robin Thapa vs. Rohit Dora reported in (2019) 7 SCC 359 held that a
litigation is based on adjudication on the merits of the contentions of the parties.
Litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the
defendant. The cause of justice does require that as far as possible, adjudication be
done on merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
8. In the interest of advancing substantial justice and bearing in mind that
the right of appeal is a valuable remedy, the substantive rights of the parties
should not be denied on technical grounds. Procedural lapses alone should not
frustrate the ends of justice. Such view of the matter, in order to grant one more
opportunity to the petitioner to contest the appeal on merits, this Court is inclined
to set aside the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 and the same is hereby set aside.
The Appellate Court is directed to number the appeal and decide the appeal on its
own merits and dispose of the same within a period of three months thereafter.
9. In view of the above, this revision stands allowed. No costs.
17.07.2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking/non speaking order
dhk
(Note: The Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the cause
title as per the memo filed by the respondents 1 and 3 dated 26.06.2025)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk
To,
1.The I Additional Judge
I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, Madras High Court
17.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
