Madras High Court
CRP.SR/68865/2025 of S.VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs PANEER SELVAM on 12 October 2026
CMP No. 24017 of 2026 in
CRP Sr No.68865 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CMP No. 24017 of 2026 in
CRP SR No.68865 of 2025
S.Vijayalakshmi
W/o. Late. G. Sowndarajan,
D.No.13, Chidambaranar St,
P.N. Pudur, Coimbatore 641 041.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Paneer Selvam, S/o. Srinivasan,
D.No.15, Chidambaranar Street,
P.N. Pudur, Coimbatore 641 041.
2. Mani, D.No.16/1,
Chidambaranar St,
P.N. Pudur, Coimbatore 641 041.
3. R. Vadivelu, Chidambaranar St
P.N. Pudur, Coimbatore 641 041.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer in CMP No.24017 of 2026: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 231 days in filing the Appeal in CRP Sr.No.68865 of 2025.
Prayer in CRP Sr No.68865 of 2025: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 05.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.01 of 2020 in AS CFR No.8555 of 2020 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coiombatore.
CMP No. 24017 of 2026 in
CRP Sr No.68865 of 2025
For Appellant(s):
Mr. S.Saravanakumar
for Mr. I Abrar Mohamed Abdullah
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.Sachin Vinayak
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
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 231 days in filing the civil revision petition.
2. According to the petitioner, the certified copy of the impugned order was made ready only on 10.06.2024 and the same was delivered to her on 14.06.2024 and thereafter, the petitioner met her counsel at Chennai only in April 2025. Further, the delay has been explained by the petitioner by mentioning health grounds. According to the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, she was undergoing treatment for cancer and diabetes.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent filed a counter, objecting to condone the delay on the ground that the petitioner had filed the first appeal also with a delay and while explaining the delay in filing the first appeal, the petitioner mentioned only diabetes and there was no whisper about the other illness namely cancer.
CMP No. 24017 of 2026 in CRP Sr No.68865 of 2025
4. The petitioner produced medical records to substantiate her averments in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition. A perusal of the medical records filed by the petitioner would indicate that she underwent surgery only in the month of August 2025, however, this civil revision petition has been filed even in April 2025. The petitioner has not explained the delay between 14.06.2024 to April 2025.
5. It is seen from the typed set of papers that in the present revision, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the first appellate court, dismissing the petition to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the first appeal. It is also seen that the petitioner has filed an affidavit to condone the delay of 400 days in re-presenting the civil revision petition and now, the present petition has been filed to condone the delay of 231 days in filing this civil revision petition. Therefore, it is clear that at every stage, there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the first appeal and filing the revision against the dismissal of the condone delay petition and also re-presenting the revision papers. Even though the length of delay is short, taking into consideration that the petitioner is in the habit of initiating proceedings with a delay at every stage, this court is not inclined to exercise it discretion in favour of the petitioner, as she has miserably failed to explain the delay from 16.04.2024 to April 2025.
CMP No. 24017 of 2026 in CRP Sr No.68865 of 2025
6. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Consequently, the civil revision petition shall stand rejected at the SR Stage itself. There shall be no order as to costs. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
CMP No. 24017 of 2026 in CRP Sr No.68865 of 2025 S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CMP No. 24017 of 2026 in CRP Sr No.68865 of 2025 12-10-2026