Madras HC Refuses To Condon 263-Day Delay In Right-Of-Way Appeal After Respondents Waited Until Execution To Challenge Decree

The petitioners, plaintiffs in O.S. No. 293 of 2008, obtained a decree concerning their right to use a pathway and consequential injunction.

The respondents filed an appeal with an application to condone a delay of 263 days. They attributed the delay to their trial counsel’s failure to inform them of the judgment and difficulty obtaining case papers.

The petitioners opposed condonation, relying on events and documents said to show that the respondents knew of the decree and its consequences well before filing the appeal.

The Subordinate Court, Musiri, allowed the condonation application on 1 November 2025. After an earlier revision order was set aside by the Supreme Court and the matter remitted, the High Court reconsidered the revision

Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, an applicant seeking condonation must establish sufficient cause for not filing within the prescribed period; the length of delay is not decisive, but the explanation must be bona fide and satisfactory.

Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, was cited for the principle that courts cannot extend limitation on equitable grounds where sufficient cause is absent, and that negligence, lack of bona fides or failure to act diligently do not justify condonation

The Court also referred to authorities cited by the petitioners on the need to assess the explanation for delay and the applicant’s bona fides

In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court considered whether the lower court had properly addressed the material circumstances relevant to the condonation application

The Subordinate Court had not addressed the petitioners’ specific counter-averments or examined whether the respondents had satisfactorily explained the delay; its order was therefore cryptic and reflected non-application of mind

The judgment had been delivered on 31 July 2024, but the respondents applied for certified copies only on 5 April 2025, received them on 2 June 2025, and filed the appeal on 17 July 2025.

The counter also referred to circumstances indicating that the respondents knew of the decree and related proceedings before filing the appeal.

In that context, the claim that counsel had not informed them did not explain the entire period of delay, particularly their subsequent inaction. The respondents consequently failed to establish sufficient cause

It allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the Subordinate Court’s order dated 1 November 2025 in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 in ASSR No. 670 of 2025.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed