CRP/1601/2023 of ARPUTHARAYAR Vs PERIYANAYAGAM on 20 August 2026

ORDER

The revision petition has been filed, challenging the dismissal of I.A.No.47 of 2016 in Unnumbered A.S.No.___ of 2016, which was in turn, filed challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.793 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Virudhachalam dated 22.10.2019.

2. I have heard Mr.G.Suryanarayanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Palani Muthu, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that though there has been a delay of 4110 days in preferring the first appeal, the Court should have adopted a liberal approach, considering that the decree has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. He would also take me through the pleadings, more specifically, the plaint and the written statement filed by the petitioner, as 3rd defendant in the suit and also refer to the plaint plan. He would contend that when the petitioner had a substantial good case on merits, then the length of delay should not be put in his way to deny a fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2025 INSC 382.

4. Per contra, Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would state that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, in Civil Appeal.No.11794 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025, has discussed the entire gamut of case law on Section 5 of the Limitation Act and held that while enquiring into a Section 5 application, the Court is not bound to go into the merits or demerits of the main case, unless and until the applicant seeking condonation of delay makes out sufficient case. The learned Senior Counsel would state that the delay is more than 4000 days and the same is not only inordinate, but has also not

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )

been sufficiently explained. She would therefore state that the First Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the Section 5 application and the said order does not require any interference.

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

6. The suit was disposed of on 14.07.2005. The condone delay application came to be filed on 15.11.2016. The reasons assigned to show sufficient cause was that the appellant was suffering from Jaundice and he was bedridden and therefore, he was not able to contact his counsel and file the appeal in time. Excepting the said reason, there is absolutely no acceptable or valid grounds made out by the petitioner for exercise of discretion in his favour.

7. The affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application itself has been filed in a casual manner, especially when the delay was not minimal, but 4110 days. Suffering from Jaundice and taking treatment for Jaundice for more than 4000 days can never be believed. The First Appellate Court has rightly found that the delay has not been explained properly and the petitioner is not entitled to exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )

8. No doubt, in Inder Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned the delay of 1537 days in filing the second appeal. However, on facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the dispute was not between the private parties, but between a private party and the State and public purpose was also involved in the matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thought it necessary to permit the second appeal to be heard and decided on merits. In fact, exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- was also imposed on the applicant in the said case. Further, the Hon’ble supreme Court found that a review petition was pending before the First Appellate Court and that had further delayed the filing of the second appeal.

9. It is only under such peculiar circumstances that the Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned the delay. I do not see how the said decision can be applied to the facts of the present case. In fact, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel in Shivamma’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot look into whether the applicant has a prima facie or strong case on the merits, unless and until sufficient cause has been made out. Here, as already found, excepting for stating that the petitioner was suffered from Jaundice, there is absolutely no explanation for the huge and inordinate delay of 4110 days. In view of the above, I do not see any merit in this revision petition.

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )

10. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 20.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To Principal Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.1601 of 2023 20.08.2026

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )