Madras High Court
H.Yovan vs C.Jegajothy on 20 June, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP NPD.No.2355 of 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 20.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRP [NPD] No.2355 of 2025 & CMP.No.13626 of 2025
H.Yovan . . . Petitioner
Versus
C.Jegajothy . . . Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure to
call for the records and revise the dismissal Order passed in I.A.No.713 of
2019 in O.S.No.113 of 2014 dated 05.02.2024 by the learned Sub Judge,
Udumalpet and allow the delay condonation petition.
For petitioner : Mr.V.Pavel
Page 1 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
CRP NPD.No.2355 of 2025
ORDER
Challenging the order of the trial Court dismissing the application filed
by the petitioner to condone the delay of 1524 days in filing an application to
set aside the ex parte decree, the present revision petition has been filed.
2.The suit has been originally filed by the respondent for recovery of
money based on a promissory note executed by the petitioner. In the said suit,
the petitioner/defendant was set ex parte and an ex parte decree came to be
passed on 30.04.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner has come forward with the
present application to condone the delay of 1524 days in filing an application
to set aside the ex parte decree.
3.It is the contention of the petitioner that he was working as an
administrative officer in LIC and according to him, in the year 2014, he
worked in Chennai and thereafter, he was transferred to several places. As far
as the suit is concerned, he contacted his counsel two to three times.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
However, his counsel informed that he will look after the case. Thereafter, the
petitioner was transferred to Pollachi. Only when the petitioner received the
notice in the Execution Petition, he came to know that his salary has been
attached. He also deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,447/- in the Court. The
respondent opposed the application filed to condone delay on the ground that
the petitioner is regularly appearing in a criminal case in C.C.No.1 of 2015 in
Judicial Magistrate Court and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that
he was not aware of the civil proceedings is denied. The trial Court, taking
note of the fact that the delay has not been properly explained and no
sufficient cause has been shown, dismissed the application by order dated
05.02.2024. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused
entire materials available in record.
5.The reason assigned for delay in the affidavit is that he was not aware
of the ex parte decree passed against him and only after receiving the notice in
the execution petition, he came to know about the ex parte decree and that his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
salary has been attached. The very reason assigned in the affidavit filed along
with application to condone such a huge delay is nothing but a false statement.
The contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced for the simple reason
that the trial Court, in its order, has clearly recorded that, as the petitioner was
regularly appearing before the criminal Court, his contention that he was not
aware of the civil proceedings cannot be accepted.
6.Though the word “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act is elastic enough to enable the Court to apply law in a meaningful manner
to subserve the ends of justice, the fact remains that, to enlarge such discretion
to the parties to advance substantial justice, the reasons assigned by the parties
should be true and justifiable and there must be sufficient cause.
7.In Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [2013
(4) SCC 81], the Apex Court has held that the discretion to condone the delay
has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case
and that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is
further observed therein that, even though limitation may harshly affect the
rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by
statute and in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or
there is inaction, then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the
delay even by imposing conditions. It is further observed that each
application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further observed that, if Courts
start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out imposing
conditions, then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and
showing utter disregard to legislature. The said judgment has also been
followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v.
Reddy Sridevi and others [Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021, dated 16.12.2021].
8.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thirunagalingam v.
Lingeswaran and another [Unnumbered Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)
No.17575 of 2023, dated 13.05.2025], has held as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
“31.It is a well-settled law that while considering the plea
for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court
is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by
the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the
merits of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons
given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other
side is equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may
consider the merits of the main matter for the purpose of
condoning the delay.
32.Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasised in
several cases that delay should not be condoned merely as an act
of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at
the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the present
case, the respondents/defendants have failed to demonstrate
reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this
crucial requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet.
33.Therefore, in the case at hand, once it has been
established that the reasons provided for condoning the delay in
the application filed are not sufficient, we are not inclined to go
into the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
Respondents regarding Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.”
9.Therefore, without assigning bona fide and justifiable reasons, as a
matter of right, the petitioner cannot seek indulgence of this Court for his
negligence in not prosecuting the matter. Having allowed the suit to be
decreed ex parte, the petitioner has waken up from a deep slumber for more
than four years, and now seeks to unsettle the settled issues. The only reason
assigned by the petitioner is that he had given the responsibility to his counsel
to look after the civil suit.
10.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 lackadaisical attitude should be curbed at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
initial stage itself. The petitioner was well aware of the criminal case and
admittedly, he has been appearing for all the hearings in the criminal case.
Whereas, he has given a casual explanation that he had handed over the
responsibility of the civil case to his lawyer. Such a reason, in the view of this
Court, is invented only for the purpose of filing the present application.
Therefore, it is very clear that the petitioner has shown his negligent attitude
towards the litigation, though aware of the consequences of the judicial
proceedings.
11.Once the delay has not been explained to the satisfaction of the
Court, as a matter of right, the petitioner cannot seek to condone his
negligence. Even for the Court to extend its discretion to lien in favour of a
party, he/she should assign bona fide, justifiable and probable reasons. The
parties who seek such a relief must show sufficient cause. The petitioner has
not shown any sufficient cause to condone such a huge delay. Hence, this
Court is of the view that the order of the trial Court dismissing the application,
requires no interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
12.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
vrc/mkn
To,
The Sub Judge,
Udumalpet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc/mkn
20.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
