Madras High Court
M/S.Housing And Urban Development ... vs K.Shreedharan on 4 June, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.No.2160 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.2160 of 2025
M/s.Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.,
Regional Office, CMDA Tower-1,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.K.Shreedharan
2.K.Sambasivam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure against the fair and decretal order dated 09.10.2023 passed
in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.Sr.No.Nil of 2020 on the file of the II Additional
District Court, Vellore @ Ranipet.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Harikrishnan
ORDER
Challenging the order passed by the II Additional District Judge,
Vellore @ Ranipet, dated 09.10.2023, in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.SR.No.Nil
of 2020, dismissing the application to condone the delay of 1465 days in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:13 pm )
filing the appeal, the present revision has been filed.
2.Brief facts leading to the filing of this revision are as follows :
The revision petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.362 of 2012 on the
file of the Subordinate Court, Arakkonam, for recovery of a sum of
Rs.5,09,686/- with interest. The suit has been decreed with interest @ 9%
from the date of plaint till the date of decree and subsequent future interest
@ 6%. According to the revision petitioner, there was a contractual rate of
10% interest agreed with penal interest @ 1%. Therefore, he filed an appeal
along with the present application to condone the delay of 1465 days in
filing the appeal.
3.The petitioner contended that, though the appeal ought to have been
filed before 03.01.2017, the judgment and decree was inadvertently
misplaced in the office along with other disposed case bundles and the same
could not be traced out. Further, due to the ill health of the counsel for the
petitioner during the lockdown declared on account of Covid-19 Pandemic,
the appeal could not be filed on time and there was a delay of 1465 days in
filing the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:13 pm )
4.The trial Court, after considering the allegations and being not
satisfied with the reasons assigned, found that there is no sufficient cause for
condoning the huge delay and dismissed the application. Challenging the
dismissal, the present revision has been filed.
5.Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
vehemently submit that the delay is neither willful nor wanton, but due to
bona fide reasons, and therefore, an opportunity should be given to the
petitioner to file an appeal, since the decree is against the contractual right
of the parties.
6.I have perused the entire materials available on record.
7.Of course, the word “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal
approach to advance substantial justice, but at the same time, without any
plausible explanation, as a matter of right, one cannot seek indulgence of the
Court to condone the negligence in not preferring an appeal for more than
three years. The reasons assigned by the petitioner for such long delay itself
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:13 pm )
is not satisfactory. Lockdown on account of Covid-19 Pandemic was
declared only in the year 2020, whereas, the appeal ought to have been filed
in the year 2017 itself. Having slept over from the year 2017 till 2020, now
the petitioner pleads as if due to intervention of Covid-19 and ill-health of
the counsel, there was a delay. Such an allegation, in the view of this Court,
is invented only for the purpose of filing the application. As a matter of
right, one cannot seek condonation of such huge delay just with bald
allegations without any plausible explanation to the satisfaction of the
Court.
8.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 the nonchalant attitude should be curbed at
the initial stage itself. The petitioner ought to have been vigilant in pursuing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:13 pm )
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 allegations have not
been proved in the manner known to law, as a matter of right, the petitioner
cannot seek indulgence of this Court to condone the negligence in not filing
an appeal on time. Even for the Court to lien in favour of the party, he/she
should satisfy the Court that the delay is due to bona fide reasons.
9.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of
the trial Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
04.06.2025
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:13 pm )
To
The II Additional District Judge,
Vellore @ Ranipet.
04.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:13 pm )
