Madras High Court
G.Katturaja vs Chellammal on 23 September, 2025
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
in
CRL.R.C.(MD) SR.No.30748 of 2025
G.Katturaja,
S/o.Gurusamy,
Pillaiyarkovil Street,
Shanmuganathapuram,
Sivagiri Taluk, Tenkasi District. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Chellammal,
W/o.Katturaja,
Mela Street,
Ammankulam,
Sivagiri Taluk, Tenkasi District.
2.Minor Gurulakshmi,
D/o.Katturaja,
Mela Street,
Ammankulam,
Sivagiri Taluk, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents
(The second respondent is represented by her guardian, the first
respondent)
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to
condone the delay of 3292 days in preferring the above Criminal
Revision against the impugned order in M.C.No.7 of 2010, dated
09.05.2014 passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Sivagiri, Tenkasi District.
For Petitioner :Mr.T.Indrachithu
For Respondents :Mr.K.Prabhu
*****
ORDER
Heard Mr.T.Indrachithu, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.K.Prabhu, learned Counsel, who accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent.
2.The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 3292 days
in filing the above Criminal Revision Case.
3.The facts of case, in a nutshell, led to filing of this Petition and
necessary for disposal of same, are as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
a)The petitioner and the first respondent are husband and wife. The
marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized
23 years back and due to wedlock, the first respondent has given birth to
the second respondent. Due to difference of opinion, they are living
separately and the first respondent has filed a petition in M.C.No.7 of
2010 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate Court, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District, seeking maintenance and the
learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tenkasi
District, vide judgment and order, dated 09.05.2014, awarded Rs.1,000/-
per month as maintenance to the first respondent and Rs.2,000/- per
month, as maintenance to the second respondent, in total, a sum of Rs.
3,000/- was awarded as maintenance to the respondents.
b)Due to the severe illness suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner
was not in a position to prefer the present Criminal Revision Petition
within the stipulated time, resulting in a delay of 3292 days. Hence, the
impugned order, dated 09.05.2014 in M.C.No.7 of 2010 passed by the
learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tenkasi
District, is under challenge in the present Criminal Revision Petition
along with the delay condonation petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
delay of 3292 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is neither
deliberate nor wilfull. Hence, he prays that this Court may be pleased to
allow the petition by condoning the delay in the interest of justice.
5.Mr.K.Prabhu, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents, submits that the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, prima facie, not legally maintainable.
He further contends that the miscellaneous petition seeking condonation
of the inordinate delay of 3292 days in filing the Criminal Revision
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the
contentions put forward by the learned Counsel on either side and also
perused the entire materials available on record.
7. The matter comes up for consideration of application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
inordinate delay of 3292 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition.
8. The standard period of limitation for filing a Criminal
Revision Petition under Section 438 of BNSS Act, 2023, is 90 days from
the date of the impugned order, as stipulated under Article 131 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. In the present case, the Criminal Revision Petition
has been filed with an inordinate delay of 3292 days. However, under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court is empowered to
condone the delay, if the petitioner is able to demonstrate "sufficient
cause" for not preferring the revision within the prescribed limitation
period. The explanation offered must be reasonable, bona fide, and not
indicative of negligence or inaction.
9. After perusal of the records, this Court finds that there is
neither a satisfactory explanation nor any reasons for the inordinate delay
of 3292 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Petition, seeking
condonation of delay. Hence, the petition is time-barred and cannot be
sustained on the ground of laches.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
10. The expression “sufficient cause“ and satisfactory
explanation has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to
advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring a petition
may be condoned in the interest of justice, where no gross negligence or
deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking
condonation of delay. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs.
Katiji, reported in 1987 (2) SCC 107, the Honourable Supreme Court
said that when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken
against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred,
for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being
done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that
judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on
technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice and is
expected to do so.
11. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala,
reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Honourable Supreme Court was
pleased to observe as under:-
“Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period
of limitation on equitable grounds.“
12. The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of
parties. They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the
objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over
their rights. They must seek remedy promptly. The object of providing a
legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The
statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy
for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the
wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes
would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by
approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy.
Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending
uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The statute providing limitation
is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest
reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period
be put to litigation). It is for this reason that when an action becomes
barred by time, the Court should be slow to ignore delay for the reason
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
that once limitation expires, other party matures his rights on the subject
with attainment of finality. Though it cannot be doubted that refusal to
condone delay would result in foreclosing the suiter from putting forth
his cause but simultaneously the party on the other hand is also entitled
to sit and feel carefree after a particular length of time, getting relieved
from persistent and continued litigation.
13. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the
Court is always deliberate. No person gains from deliberate delaying a
matter by not resorting to take appropriate legal remedy within time but
then the words “sufficient cause“ show that delay, if any, occurred,
should not be deliberate, negligent and due to casual approach of
concerned litigant, but, it should be bona fide, and, for the reasons
beyond his control, and, in any case should not lack bona fide. If the
explanation does not smack of lack of bona fide, the Court should show
due consideration to the litigant, but, when there is apparent casual
approach on the part of litigant, the approach of Court is also bound to
change. Lapse on the part of litigant in approaching Court within time is
understandable but a total inaction for long period of delay without any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
explanation whatsoever and that too in the absence of showing any
sincere attempt on the part of litigant, would add to his negligence, and
would be relevant factor going against him.
14. I need not to burden this judgment with a catena of
decisions explaining and laying down as to what should be the approach
of Court on construing “sufficient cause“ and it would be suffice to refer
a very few of them besides those already referred.
15. In the case of Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal
Kumari, reported, AIR 1969 SC 575, a three Judge Bench of the Court
said that unless want of bona fide of such inaction or negligence as
would deprive a party of the protection, the application must not be
thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.
16. The Privy Council, in the case of Brij Indar Singh Vs.
Kanshi Ram reported in ILR (1918) 45 Cal 94, observed that true
guide for a court to exercise the discretion is whether the appellant acted
with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. This principle still
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
holds good inasmuch as the aforesaid decision of Privy Council as
repeatedly been referred to, and, recently in State of Nagaland Vs.
Lipok AO and others, AIR 2005 SC 2191.
17. In the case of Vedabai @ Vijayanatabai Baburao Vs.
Shantaram Baburao Patil and others, reported in JT 2001 (5) SC
608, the Court said that under Section 5 of the Act, 1963, it should adopt
a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where
the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. In the
former case consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant
factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case
no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal
approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard and the
basic guiding factor is advancement of substantial justice.
18. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. Vs.
Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, reported
in (2008) 17 SCC 448, in para 17 of the judgment, the Court said :-
“...The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into
belated and state claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats
equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not
slumber over their rights.“
19. In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in 2012 (5) SCC 157, in
para 18 of the judgment, the Court said as under:-
“What needs to be emphasized is that even though a liberal
and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the
exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and
other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious
of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain
rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot
of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from
the cost. What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would
get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend
on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that
there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and
the cause shown for the delay does not lack bonafides, then it
may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation
given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is
thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would
be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.
In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities,
the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken
in the decision making process but no premium can be given
for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers
of the State and / or its agencies/instrumentalities and the
applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be
allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that
dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will
cause injury to the public interest.“
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
20. After taking into consideration the averments made in
the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after hearing
the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that the
petitioner has explained the delay in filing the present Criminal Revision
Petition.
21. In my view, the kind of explanation rendered herein
does not satisfy the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court that if
delay has occurred for reasons, which does not smack of mala fide, the
Court should be reluctant to refuse condonation. On the contrary, I find
that here is a case, which shows complete careless and reckless long
delay on the part of the petitioner, which has remain virtually
unexplained at all. Therefore, I do not find any reason to exercise my
judicial discretion exercising judiciously so as to justify the condonation
of delay in the present case.
22. In the result, in the light of the above said observations
and discussions made above and in the light of the decisions referred to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
above, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the inordinate delay of 3292
days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is baseless and the same is
hereby rejected.
23. In view of the above, the Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits. There is no order as to costs.
24. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion and legal
position, the present Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Index :Yes / No 23.09.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
cmr
To
1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivagiri,
Tenkasi District
2.The Section Officer,
Vernachular Section,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2025
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
cmr
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.30748 of 2025
23.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 06:13:35 pm )
