Madras High Court
Asokan vs Chokkalingam on 21 July, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP.No.2380 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.2380 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.13779 of 2025
Asokan .. Petitioner
Versus
Chokkalingam .. Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 11.08.2023 in
I.A.No.68 of 2023 in O.S.No.171 of 2021 on the file of the Sub-Court,
Thittagudi.
For Petitioner : M/s.V.Srimathi
For Respondent : Mr.R.Veeramani
ORDER
Challenging the order of the Trial Court dismissing the application to
condone the delay of 278 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte
decree dated 17.03.2022, the present revision has been filed.
2. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.171 of 2021 on the file of
the Subordinate Court, Thittagudi for recovery of money. The suit was
decreed exparte on 17.03.2022. The petitioner filed an application in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:10 pm )
I.A.No.68 of 2023 to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside
the exparte decree. The only reason assigned by the petitioner to condone
the delay is that the petitioner was not aware of the suit and suit summons
was not served on him. He came to know about exparte decree only when
he received notice in execution proceedings. The Trial Court vide the
impugned order dated 11.08.2023 dismissed the application, challenging
the same, the present revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the summons
were not served on him, he came to know about the exparte decree only
when he received with regard to the execution proceedings. Hence, seeks
for allowing this revision.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that the suit summons were served on the petitioner, whereas, the petitioner
has put forth false allegations that summons was not served on him. The
learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi and others reported
in AIR 2022 SC 332, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:10 pm )
when no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation
has been offered by the appellants therein, the High Court is not at all
justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge delay. Hence,
the learned counsel opposed the revision.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
6. The Court, in exercising discretion, particularly in these types of
petitions, has to see the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating
to its inaction or negligence. The above factors are relevant to be taken into
consideration as the fundamental principle is that Courts are required to
weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said
principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach.
There is an increasing tendency to perceive delay even in a non-serious
matter. Hence, the delay due to nonchalant attitude should be curbed at the
initial stage itself.
7. It is the only contention of the petitioner/defendant that suit
summons was not served on him. On perusal of the records, it would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:10 pm )
clearly indicate that the suit summons was served to the
petitioner/defendant on 11.01.2022 itself. Such view of the matter, the
petitioner should not be shown any mercy when false allegations are being
made before the Court in order to achieve his cause. The conduct of the
petitioner does not seem to be bonafide. This Court is of the considered
opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court.
8. When there is 'no cause' for the delay, it cannot be treated as
'sufficient case'. This Court is of the view that the petitioner ought to have
been vigilant in pursuing the litigation and the callous attitude of the
petitioner cannot be brushed aside while deciding an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, once the delay has not been
explained and no documents are produced to substantiate the cause of
delay, as a matter of right, the petitioner should not be shown any liberal
approach. This Court is of the definite view that the delay cannot be
condoned on insufficient grounds and by abusing the process of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:10 pm )
9. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India and others reported in (2021) 5 SCC 321
held as follows:
“ 28. It is evident that the term sufficient cause is
relative, fact dependent, and has many hues, largely deriving
colour from the facts of each case, and the behaviour of the
litigant who seeks condonation of delay (in approaching the
court). However, what can broadly be said to be universally
accepted is that in principle, the applicant must display bona
fides, should not have been negligent, and the delay
occasioned should not be such that condoning it would
seriously prejudice the other party.”
10. Undoubtedly, even if the delay is huge and the reasons stated are
satisfactory and genuine, the Court could condone the delay. But as,
already held the reasons stated by the petitioner is not at all, satisfactory.
This Court is of the definite opinion that no one can take advantage of his
own wrongs.
11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of
merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
21.07.2025
dhk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:10 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1. The Sub Judge
Sub Court, Thittagudi
2. The Section Officer
VR Section, Madras High Court
21.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:10 pm )
