CRP/4448/2025 of SEERANGA GOUNDER Vs N.P.CHINNASAMY on 7 September 2026

ORDER

The plaintiff in O.S.No.147 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perundurai, is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the Section 5 application, seeking condonation of 444 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC.

2. I have heard Mr.Kaithamalai Kumaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would state that the suit was filed by the petitioner for substantive reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction and though the suit had been dismissed for default on 22-08-2022, there has been sufficient cause shown by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application. He would further state that the petitioner is of advanced age and of physical ill health and therefore, the reasons assigned for condonation of delay ought to have been accepted by the Trial Court. He would further state that a fair opportunity may be given to the petitioner to prosecute the suit on merits.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Trial Court has rightly found that the petitioner has not made out any cause, much less sufficient cause and vague reasons have been assigned, without substantiating the same. He would therefore pray for the dismissal of the revision petition.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the impugned order, as well as the affidavit filed in support of the condonation application and the objections thereto, by way of counter affidavit.

6. According to the petitioner, even in the year 2019, he was attacked with Corona Virus and he was taking country treatment for the same and therefore, he could not concentrate on the court proceedings. The delay in seeking restoration is actually three years and more, however, taking advantage of the period excluded pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, the delay is still 444 days. The said application was resisted by the respondent, denying the self- serving claims of the petitioner. The Trial Court, on considering the reasons assigned by the petitioner and the objections taken by the respondent, found that the delay has not been properly explained and that the petitioner is not entitled to exercise of discretion in his favour.

7. Firstly, in India, the onset of Covid pandemic was only in late March 2020. However, the petitioner has stated that he was affected with Covid even in 2019 and that he was taking native treatment for three years for the same. The Trial Court also found that at least from 28-02-2022 onwards, the period fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after excluding limitation and till 16-06-2023 when the application was filed for condonation of delay, absolutely no evidence has been adduced on the side of the petitioner. Excepting for stating that the petitioner was taking country treatment, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for explaining the huge and inordinate delay, even giving the benefit of the Covid period exclusion to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has only stated that he was weak and having body pain and other than that there is no acceptable cause as to what prevented the petitioner from diligently prosecuting the suit. The Trial Court has rightly found that sufficient cause has not been made out by the petitioner. I do not see any grounds to interfere with the said well considered order of the Trial Court.

8. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 07.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The District Munsif Court, Perundurai.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No4448 of 2025 07.09.2026