Madras HC Rejects 2,508-Day Bid To Revive Revision Challenging Refusal To Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree After Seven Years’ Silence

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner showed sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 2,508-day delay in seeking restoration of the revision petition.

The court held

The Court held that the 2,508-day delay was inordinate and unexplained, and that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for condonation.

It also directed

It dismissed both civil miscellaneous petitions and declined to set aside the 12 September 2019 dismissal or restore the revision petition.

No costs were ordered.

01Facts

The petitioner sought to challenge an ex parte decree passed in a 2009 suit.

pp. 2–8

After the Trial Court dismissed his application to condone an 892-day delay in seeking to set aside that decree, he filed the civil revision petition.

pp. 2–8

The revision was dismissed for non-prosecution in March 2014, restored in June 2014, and later dismissed again for non-prosecution on 12 September 2019.

pp. 2–8

The petitioner applied in August 2026 to set aside the dismissal and restore the revision, seeking condonation of a 2,508-day delay.

pp. 2–8

He attributed the delay to his former counsel’s failure to inform him.

pp. 2–8

The respondent opposed the applications, pointing out that the revision had been listed in July 2015 and that the petitioner had not complied with directions to issue notice.

pp. 2–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner showed sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 2,508-day delay in seeking restoration of the revision petition.

pp. 7–10

ii.2. Whether the revision petition should be restored under Section 151 CPC after its dismissal for non-prosecution.

p. 2, 10

03Law Applied

Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires an applicant to establish sufficient cause for the delay; the delay must be explained to the Court’s satisfaction.

p. 9

A litigant must act with reasonable vigilance and follow up the progress of the case, and cannot rely on the merits of the underlying claim as a substitute for explaining delay.

p. 9

The Court relied on Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104, for these principles.

p. 9

The petitioner also relied on Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, AIR 1966 SC 1631, and Mariyamma Roy v. Indian Bank, (2009) 16 SCC 189, concerning the principle that an act of the Court should not prejudice a litigant and the need for fairness where dismissal occurs without notice; the Court did not accept those submissions as sufficient to excuse the delay.

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The Court found the petitioner’s account that the revision had not been listed between 2014 and 2019 to be factually incorrect: it was listed on 10 July 2015, when fresh court notice and private notice were ordered, but those directions were not complied with.

p. 5, 7

The petitioner also gave no satisfactory explanation for remaining inactive from the 2019 dismissal until 2026, despite knowing of the adverse decree and the dismissal of his application to set it aside.

pp. 7–9

Blaming former counsel and asserting a strong underlying case did not establish sufficient cause for the prolonged delay.

pp. 4, 9–10