Madras High Court
Srinivasa Doss vs P.Kalaidasan on 23 June, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP.No.4245 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.4245 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.25822 of 2023
Srinivasa Doss .. Petitioner
Versus
1.P.Kalaidasan
2.P.Seshian
Both represented by
1.M.L.Umapath
2.G.Kesavan
3.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003
4.Madras Metropolitan Development Authority
Presently Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Rep by its Member Secretary
Thalamuthu Natarajan Buildings
Chennai – 600 008 .. Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil
Procedure to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 19.01.2023 passed
in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.SR.No.7390 of 2022 on the file of the learned
Principal City Civil Court at Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ram
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
CRP.No.4245 of 2023
for Mr.R.Ravindran
For Respondents : Mr.P.K.Sabapathi for R1 & R2
Mrs.K.Aswini Devi, Standing Counsel
for R3
No appearance for R4
ORDER
Challenging the order of the appellate court dismissing the application
to condone the delay of 5758 days in filing the appeal under Order 41 Rule
3A of CPC, the present revision has been filed.
2.Originally, the respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.3505 of
1997 on the file of the XI Assistant Court, City Civil Court at Chennai as
against the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 for delivery of
possession, permanent and mandatory injunction. The suit was decreed
exparte on 13.09.2005. Against which, the petitioner filed an application in
I.A.No.1697 of 2010 to set aside the exparte decree with a delay of 1453
days and the said application was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2014.
Thereafter, the power agent of the plaintiffs had filed an execution petition
in E.P.No.2781 of 2019, the revision petitioner entered appearance in the
execution proceedings and was set exparte. Thereafter, the revision
petitioner filed an application to set aside the exparte order and that was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
allowed vide order dated 15.04.2021 and now, the execution petition is
pending. While so, an application has been filed to condone the delay of
5758 days in filing the appeal under Order 41 Rule 3A of CPC before the
appellate court as against the decree dated 13.09.2005. The only reason
assigned by the petitioner to condone the delay is that due to old age, he
could not contact his counsel to prefer the appeal in time. The appellate
court dismissed the application vide order dated 19.01.2023. Challenging
the same, the present revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that medical
ailment and old age of the petitioner, he could not approach the counsel to
file appeal in time and therefore, the delay occurred. Further, he also tried
to canvass as if the exparte decree and judgment does not contain any
reasons, want for determination and the same is against the provisions of
Order XX Rules 4 and 5 of CPC, therefore, the same is liable to be set
aside. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following
judgments:
a. J.S.T.Nallappa vs. C.Mahendiran made in CRP.No.2238 of 2019
dated 24.08.2023;
b. R.Stella vs. V.Antony Francis reported in (2019) 5 LW 161;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
c. Ramachandran and others vs. Balakrishnan and others reported in
(2020) 6 CTC 843;
d. N.Maheswari vs. Mariappan and others reported in 2013-1-L.W.
63;
e. Meenakshisundaram Textiles vs. Valliammal Textiles Ltd reported
in (2011) 3 CTC 168.
4.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2
submitted that petitioner has not shown sufficient cause in condoning each
days delay. The learned counsel 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
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. Though, the Courts have repeatedly held that every judgments
should contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination,
the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision, the fact remains that
in the present case, exparte decree had already been challenged by way of
an application and the same was dismissed long back which had reached
finality. Therefore, once the matter between the parties had reached
finality, this Court is of the view that merely, on the ground that decree
does not contain proper reasons the same cannot be set aside after a lapse of
more than 15 years.
8. Further, it is also to be noted that even after entering appearance in
the execution proceedings, the petitioner had not conducted the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
properly and was set exparte, however, on further application, the exparte
order in execution petition was allowed vide order dated 15.04.2021.
Thereafter, filed application to condone the delay of exorbitant 5758 days
days in filing the appeal. 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. When there is 'no cause' for the delay, it cannot be treated as
'sufficient case'.
9. The authorities cited above by the learned counsel for the petitioner
cannot be applied mechanically to the facts of the present case. No doubt,
every Court is bound by the precedents, however, the application of
precedents should be consistent with the facts and circumstances of the
case. 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
“ 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. It is to be noted that the petitioner had suffered a decree way back
in the year 2005 and the application to set aside the exparte decree was also
dismissed on 15.09.2024, the petitioner ought to have filed a revision as
against the dismissal or filed an appeal as against the exparte decree,
instead, the petitioner had remained silent all these years. That proceedings
had reached finality and certain rights too have been accrued based on the
exparte decree. Therefore, now, filing application to condone the delay in
filing the appeal with an enormous delay of 5758 days in view of this Court
is only to protract the execution proceedings. 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: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of
merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
23.06.2025
dhk
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1. The Principal Judge
Principal City Civil Court, Chennai
2.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003
3.Madras Metropolitan Development Authority
Presently Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Rep by its Member Secretary
Thalamuthu Natarajan Buildings
Chennai – 600 008
4. The Section Officer
VR Section, Madras High Court
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
23.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
