Madras HC Upholds Refusal To Condone Defendant’s 1,453-Day Delay In Appealing Ex-Parte Injunction Decree

The petitioner, the seventh defendant in a suit for permanent injunction, sought to challenge an ex parte decree dated 12 December 2016.

He filed an appeal with an application to condone a delay of 1,453 days, stating that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton and that he should have an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

The court below dismissed the delay-condonation application, finding that the petitioner had not satisfactorily explained the delay and had failed to remain vigilant in proceedings that had begun in 2004.

The petitioner challenged that dismissal under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The revision was brought under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court’s stated approach was to consider whether the order below contained perversity or illegality warranting revisional interference.

The Court also assessed whether the petitioner had satisfactorily explained the delay and established sufficient cause for its condonation.

The petitioner had not appeared or contested the suit and approached the court only after a delay of nearly four years.

The reasons offered did not satisfactorily explain the 1,453-day delay, and the Court considered that the petitioner had failed to remain vigilant despite the suit having been instituted in 2004.

Finding no perversity or illegality in the court below’s decision, the Court declined to interfere in revision.

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.