CRP/3141/2026 of M.Balan Vs T.Seeniraj on 25 September 2026

ORDER

The revision petitioners are defendants 2 and 3, aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 701 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree in O.S.No.212 of 2017.

2. I have heard Mr.B.Thirumalai, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.P.Willson Topaz for M/s.A.S.Kailasam & Associates, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would state that the Trial Court has adopted a very rigid approach in deciding the condone delay application, without applying a liberal construction to ‘sufficient cause’ occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He would state that the suit has been filed for recovery of monies allegedly due and payable from the revision petitioners-defendants and an ex-parte decree came to be passed on 16.03.2022. He would further state that the Trial Court has failed to consider that the 3rd defendant had filed an affidavit in support of the condone delay application, stating that her husband, the 2nd defendant was not keeping good health and that the 3rd defendant herself had suffered a fracture and therefore could not instruct the counsel to file written statement in time, which has resulted in the ex-parte decree. The said application was strongly resisted by the respondent-plaintiff, contending that the only intention of the petitioners is to protract the proceedings and even in the interlocutory stage, they refused to receive notice, which resulted in an interim injunction as well as interim attachment order being granted and only thereafter, the petitioners chose to engage a counsel to defend the suit. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would further state that despite several opportunities being granted to the petitioners to file written statement, they did not come forward to do so and only after giving more than sufficient and reasonable time, the Trial Court proceeded to record evidence of the plaintiff and tested the plaint averments and allegations before passing the judgment in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. He would further state that the huge money invested by the respondent has been taken full advantage of by the petitioners and they have made unlawful enrichment at the expense of the respondent and only in order to deny the fruits of the decree, all attempts are being made by the petitioners to protract the proceedings. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

6. I have already narrated the facts on which the condone delay application came to be filed and resisted. The Trial Court, in and by order dated 31.10.2025, has found that though the condone delay petition has been pending for more than five hearings, the petitioners did not even evince any interest to advance arguments in the application and proceeded to dismiss the application. The conduct of the revision petitioners therefore cannot be ignored in toto, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent. The suit has been filed for recovery of monies invested by the respondent-plaintiff in the business of the revision petitioners-defendants, together with interest and costs. Along with the suit, the plaintiff sought for interim injunction, as well as attachment and both interim orders were granted by the Trial Court, after noticing refusal to even receive notice by the revision petitioners. Thereafter, having suffered interim orders alone, the petitioners engaged a counsel. Subsequently, they have not chosen to file their written statement in time, despite the suit being adjourned for several hearings to enable the petitioners to file their written statement. Only thereafter, the defendants have been set ex-parte and after recording ex-parte evidence, the suit came to be decreed on 16.03.2022.

7. In fact, execution proceedings were also initiated for recovery of the decree amount and even in the execution petition, the petitioners entered appearance and filed their counter. Though the Trial Court has not gone into the merits of the condone delay application and has dismissed the application only on the ground that the petitioners did not prosecute the condone delay application, despite five opportunities given, since arguments have been advanced on either side, touching the merits and demerits of the condone delay application, I have also gone into the cause shown by the petitioners explaining the delay of 701 days. Excepting for stating that the 2nd defendant was not well and that the 3rd defendant, his wife suffered a fracture and therefore, they could not file their written statement in time, absolutely, no documentary evidence supporting such self serving claims were filed along with the application. The affidavit itself has been filed in such a casual manner. No details of the nature of illness and period of treatment have also been set out in the affidavit to shown sufficient cause. The delay is more than almost two years.

8. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is sine qua non for the petitioners seeking condonation of delay to make out sufficient cause before becoming entitled to an order for condonation of delay. Such sufficient cause has not been made out by the petitioners and further, having suffered a decree for a huge sum of money, namely Rs.72,47,693/- payable with future interest as well and costs, the conduct of the petitioners clearly shows that at all stages of the proceedings, they have only attempted to protract the proceedings and knocked at the doors of the Court, at unavoidable stages, only to seek further time and prolong the matter. This conduct, in fact, has been rightly taken note of by the Trial Court while dismissing the application, finding that for five hearings, the petitioners did not come forward to advance submissions in the condone delay application. In such view of the matter, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. The petitioners have not shown sufficient cause entitling them to an order of condonation of delay and hence, there is no merit in the revision petition.

9. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 25.09.2026 Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata To The District Judge, Chengalpattu.

P.B.BALAJI.

J, ata Pre-delivery order made in CRP.No.3141 of 2026 25.09.2026