N.Selvaraj vs V.Arasayee Ammal
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 28.08.2026
Pronounced on : 30.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 78 of
2026
{CNR: HCMD010031362026}
Case QR
and
C.M.P(MD)No.421 of 2026
1.Selvaraj
2.J.Prema .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.V.Arasayee Ammal
2.V.Navaneethakrishnan
3.V.Divya
4.V.Rajkumar ..Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated
01.11.2025 made in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in ASSR.No.670 of 2025 on the
file of the Sub Court, Musiri.
For Petitioners : Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Saravanan – for R1 & R2
__________
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Fair
and Decreetal Order dated 01.11.2025 made in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in
ASSR.No.670 of 2025 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Musiri.
2. The Petition in I.A.No.1 of 2025 was originally allowed
by the trial Court on 01.11.2025, against which, civil revision petition
filed in CRP(MD)No.78 of 2026 and the same was allowed on
26.02.2026. Against which Civil Appeal No.9187 of 2026 filed by the
respondents before the Apex Court and the Apex Court disposed of the
same with a direction to this Court by setting aside the order passed by
this Court and remit the matter to decide the Civil Revision Petition of
the decree holder in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order by the High Court Registry.
3. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.293 of
2008, instituted seeking a declaration of their right to use the pathway
through the ‘B’ Schedule property and a consequential injunction.
According to the revision petitioners, despite the interim injunction
__________
Page 2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
granted by the trial Court restraining the respondents from putting up any
construction, the respondents proceeded to construct a building. The
respondents also instituted O.S.No.31 of 2009 seeking issuance of patta
and a consequential injunction, and the said suit was dismissed.
O.S.No.293 of 2008 was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by
the decree, the respondents preferred an appeal in A.S.SR.No.670 of
2025 before the Subordinate Court, Musiri, along with an application
seeking condonation of the delay of 263 days in filing the appeal.
4. The revision petitioners contend that the suit was decreed
on 31.7.2024 but the respondents filed the application for certified copies
only on 05.04.2025, nearly eight months after the judgment and decree
were passed. The copies were made ready on 15.05.2025 and were
received by the respondents/appellants on 02.06.2025. However, the
appeal was filed only on 17.07.2025, with a delay of 263 days. In the
affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2025, the respondents attributed
the delay to the failure of their trial Court counsel to inform them about
the judgment and to their inability to obtain the case papers in time. The
revision petitioners contend that the said explanation is neither
satisfactory nor sufficient to justify the inordinate delay.
__________
Page 3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
5. The revision petitioners further contend that, pursuant to
the decree passed in the suit, an order relating to the cancellation of house
tax was served on the respondents, and the first respondent acknowledged
receipt of the same. According to them, this establishes that the first
respondent had knowledge of the judgment and decree as early as
16.08.2024.
6. The revision petitioners further submit that they had filed
a caveat on 18.09.2024, which was allegedly served on the respondents
and that the respondents had received the caveat notice. They contend
that the respondents were thus aware of the proceedings and the adverse
decision. Further, the water connection provided to the respondents was
disconnected, and the relevant order was served on them on 30.11.2024.
According to the revision petitioners, these circumstances demonstrate
that the respondents had knowledge of the consequences flowing from
the decree well before filing the appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further
submits that the District Revenue Officer passed an order on 07.01.2025
directing the removal of the encroachment. The revision petitioners also
initiated execution proceedings for enforcement of the decree, and notice
__________
Page 4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
in the execution petition was stated to have been served and the
respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance on 30.1.2025.
8. The revision petitioners filed an additional counter,
enclosing the aforesaid documents in support of their contention that the
respondents had knowledge of the judgment and decree well before filing
the appeal. They submit that, despite having knowledge of the
proceedings and the consequences of the decree, the respondents have
now sought to attribute the delay to the failure of their advocate to inform
them about the judgment and the delay in obtaining the case papers.
According to the revision petitioners, the explanation offered is vague,
lacks bona fides and does not satisfactorily account for the entire period
of delay. They therefore contend that the respondents have failed to
establish sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 263 days and that
the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners produced the
following judgments reported in
1) 2025 (5) MLJ – 214 (S.Sivakumar Vs. M/s.Essjohn Pharma,
rep. By its Proprietor ) wherein, in paragraph Nos.11 to 14 it has been
held as follows :
__________
Page 5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
“11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj's case
(referred herein supra) has held that in a condonation of
delay application, the Applicant has to explain as to what
'sufficient cause' prevented the Applicant to approach the
Court within a period of limitation and further held that a
party found to be negligent or for want of bona fides on his
part or not having acted diligently, then the delay cannot
be condoned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that
if there is no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to
approach the Court in time, then condoning the delay
without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever
would amount to violating the statutory provisions and
tantamounting to only a show of disregard to the
legislature.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thirunagalingam's
case (referred hereing supra), has held that the first and
foremost duty of the Court is to ascertain the bonafides of
the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation,
rather than the merits of the matter and only if sufficient
cause has been assigned for the delay and the opposition of
other side is equally balanced or stand on equal footing,
the Court can consider the merits of the main matter, for
the purpose of condoning the delay. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has further held that the delay cannot be condoned
as an act of generosity and pursuit of doing substantial
justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the
opposite parties.
13. In A.S.Jahangir's case (referred herein supra), this
__________
Page 6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
Court held that when false averments have been made,
discretionary power conferred under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act should not be extended to the Applicant who
is guilty of making such false statement.
14.In M/s.Escorts Finance Limited's case, (referred
herein supra), it was also arising out of a summary suit and
a delay of 33 days was sought to be condoned. The Delhi
High Court found that the delay was only occasioned
because of 'ipsi dixit' of the Applicant and no sufficient
cause was shown and the Application was held to be
lacking in bonafides.”
2. 2025(1) MWN Civil 420 (D.V.Venkatesan and another
Vs. N.R.Subramanian and another ) wherein, in paragraph Nos.13, 14,
17 and 21 it has been held as follows :
“13. It has been consistently held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the delay should not be excused as a
matter of generosity and rendering substantial justice is not
to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also been consistently reiterating that
the court must consider the reason for the delay rather than
the duration of the delay. The discretion to condone the
delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. In Ramlal vs. Rewa Coal
Fields Ltds, reported in AIR 1962 SC 361, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that once the period of limitation
expires, then the applicant has to explain the delay made
__________
Page 7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
thereafter for day by day and if he is unable to explain the
delay even for a single day delay, it would be deemed that
the party did not have sufficient cause for delay.
14. No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as
this Court have repeatedly held that the length of delay is
immaterial, however, the applicant, who seeks condonation
of delay, has to show sufficient or just cause. Such proof of
sufficient or just cause is a pre-condition for entertaining
the application for condonation of delay. The discretion to
allow an application for condonation of delay is different
from the satisfaction of the requirements of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act. The discretion cannot be exercised by a
Court when the applicant seeking condonation of delay is
unable to satisfy the Court that he had just or sufficient
cause for not approaching the Court earlier and that the
delay was occasioned beyond his control, there was no
gross negligence or deliberate inaction or any lack of
bonafides. If the petitioners are able to show and satisfy the
Court, in the absence of the above militating factors, then
they are entitled to discretion being exercised in his favour.
However, in the case on hand, this Court is of the view that
the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause to condone the
huge delay. That apart, condoning the long delay in the
absence of sufficient reason would cause prejudice to the
other parties. Further, when the defence of limitation is
raised by the parties, the Court cannot accept the
application beyond the period of limitation.
……
__________
Page 8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
17. Left with no other choice, it appears that the entire
blame has been thrown on the head of the advocates who
were appearing for the revision petitioners in the trial
court. Even if this Court assume for a moment that the
concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself,
cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay
as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights
and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial
proceedings. The litigant, therefore, should not be
permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the
advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek
relief.
…..
21. It is well settled principle that the rules of
limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties.
They are meant to bar the remedy for those who seek
dilatory tactics to enforce their remedy within the period
stipulated by the legislature. When the statute prescribes
certain acts to be done in a proper manner within a
particular time litigant cannot be so negligent despite
having appeared in the Court and make bald allegations at
later point of time. The rules of limitation thus will only bar
the remedy but does not extinguish the right. Therefore,
when the remedy is extinguished under the operation of
law, the same cannot be re-opened at the later point of
time.”
__________
Page 9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
3. 2013 (14) SCC 81 (Basawaraj and another Vs. Special
Land Acquisition Officer) wherein, in paragraph Nos.12 and 15 it has
been held as follows :
“12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of
limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to
be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.
The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on
equitable grounds. “A result flowing from a statutory
provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore
that provision to relieve what it considers a distress
resulting from its operation.” The statutory provision may
cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but
the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to
the same. The legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” which means
“the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a
situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience
is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting
a statute.
…….
15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the
effect that where a case has been presented in the court
beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as
to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate
and enough reason which prevented him to approach the
court within limitation. In case a party is found to be
negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and
circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted
__________
Page 10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified
ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in
condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any
condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only
within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to
the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient
cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time
condoning the delay without any justification, putting any
condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in
violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to
showing utter disregard to the legislature.”
10. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners
would submit that the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court have repeatedly held that, once the period of limitation has expired,
the applicant is duty-bound to satisfactorily explain the delay. In the
present case, the respondents have failed to explain the delay, even for a
single day, and have not established sufficient cause for condoning the
same. Hence, the learned counsel prayed that the Civil Revision Petition
be allowed and the order passed by the trial Court be set aside.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would submit that the respondents had not put up any
construction during the subsistence of the order of injunction, but had
__________
Page 11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
obtained a building plan from the concerned authorities in August 2008
and thereafter constructed the building. It is further submitted that the
trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of the revision
petitioners/plaintiffs without any supporting material. Though the
revision petitioners relied upon several documents, they had not properly
produced the same before the trial Court, which nevertheless permitted
them to be marked. Mere marking of a document does not amount to
proof of its contents. The respondents were not afforded an opportunity to
establish the genuineness of the documents and, according to them, had
no knowledge of the same. It is therefore contended that the trial Court
rightly allowed the application, leaving it open to the respondents to
establish their case before the appellate Court. Accordingly, the learned
counsel prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
13. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court would
reveal that the revision petitioners had referred to several documents in
their additional counter and had also filed a list of documents along with
the same. The materials indicate that certified copies of the relevant
__________
Page 12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
records had been obtained from the trial Court. Even assuming, for the
sake of argument, that the revision petitioners had not formally marked
the documents, they had specifically set out the relevant events and
circumstances in their counter. However, the respondents did not file any
reply controverting those averments. The trial Court, while considering
the application, failed to advert to the specific averments contained in the
counter or examine whether the respondents had satisfactorily explained
the delay. In paragraph 7 of the impugned order, the trial Court observed
that the respondents had not stated anything regarding the cause of delay
and had merely narrated the facts of the case. However, the revision
petitioners had elaborately set out the relevant events at each stage to
demonstrate that the respondents had knowledge of the proceedings and
the subsequent developments.
14. The common judgment in O.S. Nos. 293 of 2008 and 31
of 2009 was pronounced on 31.07.2024. However, no application for a
certified copy was filed immediately thereafter. The copy application was
filed only on 05.04.2025, and the certified copy was obtained on
02.06.2025. Even thereafter, the appeal was filed only on 17.07.2025.
The trial Court failed to consider these circumstances and the specific
averments made in the counter. Instead, it passed a cryptic order
__________
Page 13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
observing that the respondents could ventilate their grievances before the
appellate Court. The trial Court, however, failed to examine the crucial
question as to whether the respondents had disclosed sufficient cause in
the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay.
The failure to consider the material averments and the circumstances
relevant to the question of limitation renders the impugned order
unsustainable.
15. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioners emphasise that an applicant seeking condonation of
delay must furnish a satisfactory explanation for the delay and establish
sufficient cause for not approaching the Court within the prescribed
period of limitation. Though a liberal approach may be adopted while
considering an application for condonation of delay, such an approach
cannot dispense with the statutory requirement of establishing sufficient
cause. The length of the delay is not, by itself, decisive; what is material
is whether the explanation offered is bona fide and satisfactory. The
Court is also entitled to consider the materials available on record while
determining whether the applicant had knowledge of the proceedings and
whether the delay was deliberate or attributable to circumstances beyond
the applicant’s control. In the present case, the revision petitioners had
__________
Page 14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
placed relevant materials before the trial Court in support of their
objections. However, the trial Court failed to consider those materials and
did not record any reasoned finding on the objections raised by the
revision petitioners. The impugned order, having been passed without
considering the material averments and the relevant circumstances,
suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside.
16. A perusal of the averments made in the counter would
indicate that the respondents had knowledge of the proceedings . Despite
such knowledge, they did not take any steps to challenge the judgment
until the revision petitioners/plaintiffs initiated execution proceedings.
The explanation offered in the affidavit accompanying the application,
namely, that their advocate had not informed them about the judgment,
cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be accepted as
a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay, particularly in the
absence of a convincing explanation for the subsequent inaction. The
respondents have failed to establish sufficient cause warranting
condonation of the delay.
17. Accordingly, this Court finds that the application for
condonation of delay ought not to have been allowed by the trial Court.
__________
Page 15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside, and the Civil
Revision Petition deserves to be allowed.
18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and
the order dated 01.11.2025 made in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in ASSR.No.670 of
2025 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Musiri is set aside. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30.10.2026
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
To
The Subordinate Court,
Musiri.
Copy to
1.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page 16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 78 of 2026
R. POORNIMA, J.
RM
C.R.P(MD)No.78 of 2026
30.10.2026
__________
Page 17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 07:15:48 pm )