Madras High Court
OSA.SR/94362/2022 of Radhika Vs S.S.Sivachakravarthy on 13 October 2026
CMP No. 22192 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
CMP No. 22192 of 2023
AND
OSA SR NO. 94362 OF 2022
CNR:{HCMA011368912022}
Radhika
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. S.S.Sivachakravarthy
2. W.S.Sarojini Ammal
3. W.S.Siva Rani
4. W.G.Kalyanasundaram
5. M/s.S.V.S.Oil Mills
Rep by its Partner S.V.Chandrapandian,
No.8/12, T.H.Rd, Chennai 600 019
6. K.Punithavathi
7. D.Venkatesan
8. G.Chellapan
9. W.G.Sulochalan Ammal (Deceased)
10.W.G.Pankajavalli
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:06 pm )
CMP No. 22192 of 2023
11.W.G.Vijayakumari
12.W.G.Devaranjini
13.W.G.Devamanohari
14.V.Srinivasan
15.Prasanth
16.N.Ramalingam
17.Rajeswari
18.Deivanayagam @ Deivanayaki
19.Umasankaran
20.Rukmaniammal
21.Chandran
22.Jijibai
23.Geetha
24.Padmini @ Sathyabhama
25.Rajasekaran
26.S.Saroja
27.W.S.Raja
28.W.S.Kumar
29.Kalpana
30.Latha
31.Anitha
32.W.S.Jothi
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:06 pm )
CMP No. 22192 of 2023
33.W.S.Ravichandran
34.J.Mohana Santhi
35.B.Jamuna
36.S.Mahalakshmi
37.B.Rathinamala
38.M.L.Jagadeesan
39.J.Saravana Kumar
40.J.Arunkumar
41.M.Jaya Shankar & Babu
42.M.Jayakanth
43.S.Pramila
44.Mala @ Nirmala
45.C.Chandrasekaran
46.C.Sethuraman
47.C.Gunabhooshani
48.C.Vijayalakshmi
49.C.Leelvathy
50.C.Hemalatha
51.C.Anandhi
52.D.Sridharan
53.V. Veerammal @ Vimala
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:06 pm )
CMP No. 22192 of 2023
54.Pushpaveni
55.K. Samundeeswari
56.P. Venkatachalapathy
57.R. Ranjani
58.W.R. Kuppuraj
59.J. Mohana Sundari
60.B. Kalaivani
61.V. Nirmala
62.R. Revathi
63.W.S. Suguna
64.T D Hemalatha
65.T D Suresh Babu
66.S Shanmugapriyan
67.S. Kannagi
68.W.S.Elango
69.W.S.Shantakumar
70.C.Malarvizhi
71.D.Kalyani
72.W.S.Suresh
..Respondent(s)
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:06 pm )
CMP No. 22192 of 2023
CMP No. 22192 of 2023
Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone the delay of 2937 days in filing the OSA against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in Tr.C.S.No.243 of 2003.
OSA SR NO. 94362 OF 2022
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules r/w. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in Tr.C.S.No.243 of 2003 and dismiss the suit with exemplary cost of this appellant.
CMP No. 22192 of 2023
For Appellant(s):
Mr.R.Karunagaran
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Jaganathan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 2937 days in filing the above Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 30.10.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Tr.C.S.No.243 of 2003.
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:06 pm )
CMP No. 22192 of 2023
2. The suit is for partition and a preliminary decree has been passed. The reason assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for the huge delay is that the petitioner was suffering from Corona and she was admitted in the hospital. Only thereafter, she obtained the certified copy of the judgment and decree and has filed the above Appeal. Hence, the delay had occurred.
3. It is relevant to note that, unless sufficient cause is shown, as a matter of right, delay cannot be condoned. No doubt, Courts would normally take a liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay, provided the reasons assigned by the parties should be true and justifiable and there must be sufficient cause. On a perusal of the entire affidavit, even assuming that the petitioner has suffered some incapacity due to corona, the fact remains that the impugned judgment and decree was passed as early as on 30.10.2014 and the corona pandemic set in only in the year 2020. Even then, during the period of six years, the petitioner has not taken any steps to file an Appeal. Absolutely, there is no pleading in this regard. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone such a huge delay. Further, it is also brought to our notice that the connected Appeals filed as against the same judgment and decree in O.S.A.Nos.98 of 2015 and 99 of 2020 have already been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by a common judgment dated 06.04.2026.
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:06 pm )
CMP No. 22192 of 2023
4. Hence, we do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, O.S.A.SR No. 94362 of 2022 stands rejected. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MKN
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:06 pm )
CMP No. 22192 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J. MKN CMP No. 22192 of 2023 AND OSA SR NO. 94362 OF 2022 13-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:06 pm )