Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2794/2026 of S.SUNDARESHWARAN Vs R.ANANTHARAJ on 15 October 2026
CRP(MD) No. 2794 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) No. 2794 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011135312026}
S.Sundareshwaran
S/o.Sakthivel,
Thalayuthu Post,
Palani Taluk,
Dindigul District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
R.Anantharaj
S/o.Ramasamy Gounder,
Thalayuthu Post,
Palani Taluk,
Dindigul District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: J-35. Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, to allow the civil revision petition and set aside the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.185 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palani dated 10-11-2025 and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s G.Radhakrishnan
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 petition is filed against the order dated 10.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.185 of 2016 by the Principal Sub-Court, Palani.
CRP(MD) No. 2794 of 2026
2. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S. No. 185 of 2016 against the respondent seeking specific performance of the sale agreement dated 24.04.2015 by directing the respondent to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property upon receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. Under the said agreement, the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 3,00,000/-, out of which the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- as advance, leaving a balance of Rs. 40,000/- payable to the respondent. The petitioner, therefore, instituted the suit seeking a direction to the respondent to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance consideration. The suit was decreed ex parte on 30.08.2018, directing the petitioner to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/- before the trial court. However, the petitioner submits that, owing to ill health, he was unable to deposit the said amount within the time stipulated by the court.
3. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking condonation of the delay in depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner seeks to deposit the amount after a delay of six years and had failed to produce supporting documents to substantiate his claim of ill health. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner contends that he was suffering from memory
CRP(MD) No. 2794 of 2026 loss, which prevented him from complying with the direction of the court within the stipulated time. In support of his contention, the petitioner has produced medical records to substantiate his illness and seeks an opportunity to deposit the balance sale consideration by condoning the delay.
4. Upon examining the medical documents produced by the petitioner, the trial court came to the conclusion that the documents did not disclose any serious illness that would have prevented the petitioner from depositing the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period. As the petitioner had failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of six years, the trial court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court.
5. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. The burden is on the petitioner to satisfactorily explain the delay in depositing the balance sale consideration. In the present case, despite the direction to deposit the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- pursuant to the decree passed in the year 2018, the petitioner failed to take any steps to deposit the amount for nearly six years. The medical documents produced by the petitioner do not satisfactorily explain the prolonged delay. In the absence of sufficient cause for the delay, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial court.
CRP(MD) No. 2794 of 2026 Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NS To The Principal Sub Court, Palani.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
CRP(MD) No. 2794 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. NS CRP(MD) No. 2794 of 2026 15-10-2026