R. NAGALINGAM vs JAYALAKSHMI

CMP. Nos.23402 and 23404 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on:01.10.2026 Pronounced on:16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CMP. Nos.23402 & 23404 of 2026
in CRP (NPD) No.749 of 2014
CMP. No.23402 of 2026-
R.Nagalingam,
S/o.Raju Naicker,
th
No.2, 5 Street, Sastri Nagar,
R.V. Nagar, Kodungaiyur,
Chennai - 600 051.
..Petitioner in both CMPs
Vs
Jayalakshmi,
W/o.Thiruvenkata Naicker (Late),
Old No.49, New No.21,
Bharathidasan Street, Periya
Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 600 118. ...Respondent in both CMPs
PRAYER in CMP. No.23402 of 2026: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 2508 days in
filing the petition to set aside the order of dismissal dated 2508 days in filing the
petition to set aside the order of dismissal dated 12.09.2019 passed in C.R.P.
(NPD) No.749 of 2014.
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

CMP. Nos.23402 and 23404 of 2026
PRAYER in CRP. No.23404 of 2026: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has
been filed under Section 151 of CPC, to set aside the order of dismissal dated
12.09.2019 passed in C.R.P. (NPD) No.749 of 2014, restore the Civil Revision
Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Janarthanan in both CMPs
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.N.Shiju in both CMPs
COMMON ORDER
These Applications have been filed for condoning a delay of 2508 days in
filing the Application to set aside the order of dismissal dated 12.01.2019 in
CRP (NPD) No.749 of 2014 and to consequently, set aside the order of
dismissal of the revision petition.
2. I have heard Mr.V.C.Janarthanan, for Mr.M.Venkadeshkumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.N.Shiju, learned counsel for the respondent.
3.Mr.V.C.Janarthanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the suit has been filed in the year 2009, seeking to set aside the sale
deed of the year 1991 and unfortunately, an exparte decree came to be passed,
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

CMP. Nos.23402 and 23404 of 2026
without the knowledge of the petitioner in the year 2010. Mr.Janarthanan,
learned counsel would contend that on coming to know of the exparte decree on
31.07.2012, the petitioners immediately filed an application to condone the
delay of 892 days in setting aside the exparte decree. However, the said
application was dismissed by the Trial Court, as against which, the present
CRP. (NPD) No.749 of 2014 has been filed. The said revision petition was
pending and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was dismissed
for non prosecution on 20.03.2014. However, thereafter, on 11.06.2014, the
revision was restored to file. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
contends that the revision was not listed thereafter until 2019 and the learned
counsel for the petitioner did not inform the petitioner about the status of the
matter including the fact that the revision had actually was posted for dismissal,
on 06.09.2019.
4. The learned counsel would further state that only after making
enquiries in the Registry, the petitioner came to know that the revision had
already been dismissed on 12.09.2019. The learned counsel therefore states
that for the fault of the Counsel, the petitioner who is a layman and also being
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

CMP. Nos.23402 and 23404 of 2026
totally unaware of legal procedure and technicalities, should not suffer. He
further reiterates the fact that the lapse on the part of the Counsel should not
prejudice the petitioner, especially when the petitioner has a good case on
merits. In this regard, Mr.Janarthanan, learned counsel points out to the fact that
the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. He also relied on the order passed
by this Court in Dineshchand Vs. Ellamma, in CRP Nos.617 and 618 of 2025
dated 14.11.2025, where I had allowed restoration of suits, that had been
dismissed for non prosecution on the ground that an opportunity should be
given to the party who suffered an adverse decree. He also relied on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jang Singh Vs. Brij Lal and others,
reported in AIR 1966 SC 1631 and Mariyamma Roy Vs. Indian Bank, reported
in, (2009) 16 SCC 189, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no act of
Court should harm a litigant and a dismissal without notice, is violative of the
principles of natural justice. The learned counsel would therefore prays for a
delay 2508 days being condoned and the revision being disposed of on merits.
5. Per contra, Mr.P.N.Shiju, learned counsel for the respondent would
vehemently opposed the condonation of inordinate delay of 2508 days. Firstly,
__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

CMP. Nos.23402 and 23404 of 2026
the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.P.N.Shiju, would submit that the
petitioner cannot attempt to throw the blame on the Counsel and it was the
bounden duty of the petitioner to follow up his matter. Taking me through the
affidavit in support of the condone delay application, presently filed
Mr.P.N.Shiju, would state that the conduct of the petitioner, right from day one,
clearly establishes the fact that he has been indifferent and callous and
therefore, he cannot be given an audience, that too, when the delay is inordinate
and totally unexplained.
6. With regard to the argument of Mr.V.C.Janarthanan that between 2014
and 2019, the revision was not listed for hearing before this Court,
Mr.P.N.Shiju, would point out to the fact that on 10.07.2015, the revision was
in fact, listed for hearing before the Court and fresh notice, besides private
notice which was also ordered to be taken by the petitioner. Admittedly, the
said order has not been complied with on the side of the petitioner.
7. Mr.Shiju, learned counsel for the respondent would state that the
petitioner has sworn to a false affidavit that the matter was never listed between
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

CMP. Nos.23402 and 23404 of 2026
2014 and 2019, which is contrary to the admitted position that the Civil
Revision Petition was listed for hearing on 10.07.2015 and only for the default
on the part of the petitioner that the revision claims to be dismissed for non
prosecution. He would further state that even on an earlier occasion, the
petitioner had allowed the revision petition to be dismissed for non prosecution
and for the repeated inaction on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot
seek indulgence of this Court. In any event, learned counsel states that the
delay remains wholly unexplained, expecting for throwing the blame on the
erstwhile Counsel. In this regard, he would rely on my decision in Chitravel
and another Vs. Jothimani, in CRP. (MD) No.798 of 2025, dated 20.12.2023 ,
where I had held that the litigant cannot blame the Counsel, that too, behind the
back of the Counsel and attempt to get huge and inordinate delay condoned. He
would therefore pray for dismissal of the Petitions.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel on either side.
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

CMP. Nos.23402 and 23404 of 2026
9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner suffered an exparte decree in
O.S. No.5857 of 2009, and an application seeking condonation of delay 892
days was taken out to set aside the exparte decree. On contest, the Trial Court
dismissed the said application, finding that the petitioner has not made out
sufficient cause. Challenging the said order, the present revision was filed.
Even immediately after filing of the revision petition, the Civil Revision
Petition came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 20.03.2014 itself.
However, the revision was restored to file on 11.06.2014. It is specifically
contended by the learned counsel that thereafter the revision was never listed
until 2019 by which time, the petitioner was in dark because the then Counsel
had not informed the petitioner about the progress of the revision. This
averment is found to be factually incorrect, since as rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondent, the revision was listed on 10.07.2015 and
fresh notice was ordered through Court as well as privately, to the respondent.
The said order also was not complied with on the side of the petitioner.
Casually, the petitioner states that the revision was not listed between 2014 and
2019 and though the revision came to be dismissed on 12.09.2019, for non
prosecution, the petitioner claims that he came to know about the same on
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

CMP. Nos.23402 and 23404 of 2026
enquiry from the Registry in 2026. The present Application has been presented
on 24.08.2026. A litigant is bound to be vigilant and follow up his/her matter.
In fact, the lawyer representing the litigant is only a representative/agent of the
litigant before the Court and the party to the lis is the petitioner or the
respondent, as the case may be. Therefore, total silence on the part of the
petitioner from 2019 to 2026 is clearly unexplained. The delay is also huge and
inordinate and it is not believable that a diligent litigant would have kept quite
all these years, without even approaching his lawyer to find out the status of the
case. Moreso, in the present case, the petitioner is fully aware that he has also
suffered an exparte decree in the suit and the attempt to set aside the exparte
decree has also been dismissed. In such circumstances, the petitioner should
have been more cautious and should have followed up with his Counsel, to
ensure that the revision is duly prosecuted.
10. In paragraph No.10, the petitioner very casually contends that he
came to know about the order of dismissal dated 12.09.2019, recently, upon
personal enquiry at the Registry and thereafter, he has filed the Application on
17.08.2026 and revision has been presented on 24.08.2026. As already stated
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

CMP. Nos.23402 and 23404 of 2026
herein above, the affidavit itself exposes the callous and lackadaisical manner in
which the petitioner has been prosecuting the litigation despite being fully
aware of an adverse decree having been passed against him in the suit as early
as in 2010. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs
Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others , reported in 2025 INSC 1104 , has
also discussed the entire plethora of case law under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act and held that the petitioner is bound to show sufficient cause for the delay
and without explaining the delay to the satisfaction of the Court, the petitioner
cannot fall back on the merits of the main claim and contend that since the
petitioner has a very good case on merits, he should be given an opportunity and
therefore, the delay should be condoned.
11. In view of the above, I do not see any merit in the Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions and accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Petitions
are dismissed. No costs.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RKP
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )

CMP. Nos.23402 and 23404 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI, J.
RKP
Pre-delivery Order in
CMP. Nos.23402 & 23404 of 2026
in CRP (NPD) No.749 of 2014
16-10-2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:27 pm )