Madras High Court
… vs P.Vatchala on 18 June, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.No.2881 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18..06..2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.2881 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.18762 of 2019
A. Velkumar
….. Petitioner
-Versus-
1.P.Vatchala,
W/o Prakash,
Proprietrix of Prakash Handlooms,
33, First Agraharam, Salem 636 001.
2.P.M.Exports,
Rep. by its Partner-Manickam,
S/o late Muniyappan
3.M.Manikumar,
Son of late Muniyappan
4.M.Balasubramani,
S/o late Muniyappan
Respondents 2 to 4 are residing at
No.246, Cuddalore Main Road, Ammapet,
Salem 636 003.
5.Sri Arun Traders,
Rep. by its Partner,
Office at 75-D, Muniayappan Koil Street,
Shevapet,
Salem – 636 002.
1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:19 pm )
C.R.P.No.2881 of 2019
6.A.Karthikeyan,
S/o. S.Arunachalam,
No.129, Thanga Sengodan Street,
Salem – 636 003.
….. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to
set aside the Fair and Final Order dated 02.07.2019 made in I.A.No.155 of
2018 in unnumbered A.S. (SR) No.13205 of 2018 on the file of the learned
Principal District Judge, Salem District by allowing this civil revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajesh
For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.L.Sudarsanam for R1
No appearance for R6
Notice not ready for RR2 to 5 (batta due)
ORDER
The challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 02.07.2019
made in I.A.No.155 of 2018 in unnumbered A.S. (SR) No.13205 of 2018 on
the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, whereby the learned
Judge has refused to condone the delay of 806 days in filing the appeal suit
against the judgement and decree dated 11.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.345 of
2010 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, and thereby
dismissing the application in I.A. No.155 of 2018 filed under Order XLI and
Rule 3(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the unsuccessful 7th
defendant in the suit.
2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:19 pm )
2. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and revision petitioner is the 7th
defendant in the original suit in O.S.No.345 of 2010 on the file of the learned
Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem. The respondents 2 to 6 are the defendants
1, 3, 4, 5 and 8.
3. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,61,000/- with
subsequent interest @ 36% per annum on Rs.5,00,000/- from 17.12.2003 to till
date of realization. The suit was based on the two dishonored cheques. The said
suit was decreed against the defendants 5 to 8 with costs by judgment dated
11.08.2016 whereunder the defendants 5 to 8 were directed to pay a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of plaint till date of
decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum, while the suit against the defendants 1
to 4 was dismissed.
4. The civil revision petitioner/7th defendant preferred an appeal against
the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.345 of 2010 along
with an application seeking to condone the delay of 806 days in filing the
appeal suit.
5. While so, the plaintiff has also preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.16
of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, challenging
the rate of interest awarded in the decree as being on the lower side and that the
3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:19 pm )
dishonoured suit cheques were for commercial purpose and therefore, the trial
Court ought to have awarded the contractual rate of interest only.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the
revision petitioner has valid grounds to succeed in the appeal if he is permitted
to contest the appeal on merits by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The
revision petitioner, now only going through the appeal filed by the plaintiff
aggrieved by the rate of interest awarded by the trial court and came to know
that he has a bright chance to succeed in the appeal suit.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit
that when already an appeal filed by the plaintiff is pending, no prejudice
would be caused to the plaintiff if the delay is condoned and the revision
petitioner is permitted to have his appeal numbered and get it disposed of on
merits along with the pending appeal suit at the instance of the
respondent/plaintiff.
8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would on the other hand
contend that the revision petitioner himself being an advocate, is presumed to
be aware of the statutory limitation and the legal consequences of the delay.
Yet, there is no reasonable cause much less sufficient cause to condone the
huge delay. In the absence of sufficient cause, the delay in filing the appeal suit
4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:19 pm )
cannot be condoned. No liberal approach should be taken where there is lack
of bona fides or where negligence or inaction is apparent. Mere pendency of an
appeal field by the plaintiff does not, by itself, constitute a valid reason for
condoning the delay.
9. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent in support of his above
submissions placed much reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi and others [AIR 2022
SC 332], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 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.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was not an advocate at the time when he moved the appeal, but
subsequently he got enrolled as Advocate.
11. This Court is not concerned about the status of the revision
petitioner, but what is required to be seen is whether the petitioner has
demonstrated sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal
suit or not.
12. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the available
5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:19 pm )
materials carefully.
13. The main reason set out by the petitioner for the huge delay of 806
days in filing the appeal suit against the judgment and decree of the trial court
is as follows:
“I humbly submit that I am the 7th
defendant in the said suit which was filed by the
1st respondent/plaintiff has filed this appeal on
the said decree and judgment in A.S.No.16 of
2018 which is pending before the Honorable
Additional District Judge No.2, Salem. Now
only I perused all the documents regarding the
suit and came to know that valuable evidences
are available on my side which is to be raised in
a separate appeal. The 1st respondent had filed
the said appeal in A.S.No.16/2018 only on
limited grounds for increasing the interest rate
alone. So it is just and necessary that I have to
file a separate appeal by challenging the decree
and judgment in O.S.No.345 of 2010 with a
delay of 806 day. The above said delay is neither
willful nor wanton but a bona fide one. So is is
just and necessary that the delay may be
condoned and taken up this appeal and order to
dispose along with the Appeal No.16 /2018.”
6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:19 pm )
14. Upon a careful consideration of the reasons mentioned in the
affidavit submitted in support of the delay condonation petition, this Court
finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated sufficient or convincing reasons
to justify the inordinate delay. According to the revision petitioner/7th
defendant, even though the original suit was decreed on 11.08.2016 in favour
of the 1st respondent/plaintiff, she (the plaintiff) filed an appeal in A.S. No.16
of 2018, contesting that the interest awarded is too low. The said appeal is
pending before the II Additional District Judge, Salem. According to the
revision petitioner/7th defendant, it was only after going through the grounds of
appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2018 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff, he came to
understand that there were substantial defences available to him to maintain the
appeal and to succeed it and thereby, he preferred the appeal suit and in the
mean time, delay of 806 days had occurred, which is neither willful nor
wanton.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that while a liberal
approach may be taken in matters of condonation of delay, however, such an
approach cannot be extended in the absence of sufficient cause. The party
seeking condonation must demonstrate at least a reasonable cause, if not a
sufficient one, for the delay occasioned.
7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:19 pm )
16. In the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh [(2010) 8
SCC 685], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that 'the law of
limitation' is founded on public policy and a liberal approach cannot be equated
with a license to approach the Court at one’s whim.
17. Similarly, in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649], the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that where there is inaction, negligence,
or absence of bona fides, delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds
alone. The same principle was reiterated in the case of Basawaraj v. Special
Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that 'sufficient cause' is the sine qua non for condonation of
delay and absence of it, renders the application liable to be dismissed.
18. In the present case, no reasonable explanation has been offered,
much less any sufficient cause to justify the prolonged delay. The reason set
out by the revision petitioner that the appeal filed by the plaintiff was on
limited grounds challenging only the rate of interest awarded by the trial court
as being on lower side, whereas he has valuable defence to raise in the appeal
and hence, separate appeal is necessary, which ought to be entertained by
condoning the delay, cannot be said to be a valid reason much less sufficient
8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:19 pm )
reason for the condonation of delay of 806 days. Therefore, this Court, having
regard to the well settled proposition of law cited supra, is of the view that in
the absence of sufficient cause, such huge delay cannot be condoned. The 7th
defendant has not taken any steps to file appeal against the decree and
judgment of the trial Court within the period of limitation. Further, it is
pertinent to note that even after filing the appeal by the plaintiff questioning the
rate of interest awarded by the trial Court, the revision petitioner/7 th defendant
has not taken any steps to file cross objection within the statutory period to
assert his rights. In the absence of sufficient cause, the delay cannot be
condoned as a matter of course. Mere pendency of an appeal filed by the
plaintiff cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground for condoning the
delay.
19. It is needless to mention that the civil revision petitioner/7th
defendant can very well contest the appeal filed by the other side on merits on
all available grounds and the absence of an appeal or cross objection, does not,
by itself result in any prejudice to the defendant to contest the appeal by the
plaintiff.
20. In view of the above and in the absence of any valid or bona fide
explanation much less sufficient cause, this Court finds no ground has been
9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:19 pm )
made out to condone the delay. Thus there is no error or illegality found in the
order of the trial court dismissing the delay condonation application. The Civil
Revision Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
In the result, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected CMP is closed.
Index : yes / no 18..06..2025
Neutral Citation : yes / no
kmk
To
1.The II Additional District Judge, Salem, Salem District.
10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:19 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,
kmk
18.06..2025
11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:19 pm )
