OSA/82/2025 of K.C.SELVAM Vs THE CHAIRMAN on 14 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by GK. Muthukumaar J.) These Original Side Appeals have been preferred by the appellant, challenging the common order dated 3.9.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the appellant's applications filed seeking to set aside the common order of the Learned Master dated 2.12.2022, refusing to condone the delay of 1161 days in representing the plaint and also to condone the delay of 1181 days in paying the deficit court fees.

2. The appellant had filed a suit for recovery of money to the tune of about Rs.2.5 crores from the defendants, due to non-clearance of bills by the respondents to the appellant, arising out of a contract entered into between them.

3. We find that the appellant had filed two applications, one in A.No.5227 of 2022 and other in A.No.5228 of 2022 before the Learned Master. Application No.5227 of 2022 was filed seeking to condone the delay of 1161 days in representing the plaint, while Application No.5228 of 2022 was filed seeking to condone the delay of 1181 days in paying the deficit court fees. However, both the applications came to be dismissed by the Learned Master on merits.

4. Against the dismissal of these applications by the Learned Master, the appellant had filed A.Nos.3995 and 3996 of 2023 before the Learned Single Judge of this Court. A.No.3995 of 2023 had been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 02.12.2022 passed in A.No.5227 of 2022 in C.S.D.No.95746 of 2019. This application pertains to condoning the delay of 1161 days in representing the plaint.

5. Similarly, A.No.3996 of 2023 was filed by the appellant seeking to set aside the order dated 2.12.2022 passed in A.No.5228 of 2022 in C.S.D.No.95746 of 2019. This application pertains to condoning the delay of 1181 days in paying the deficit Court fees. The Learned Single Judge considered both these applications on merits and dismissed them.

6. Against the said dismissal, the appellant has preferred these two Original Side Appeals before this Court. O.S.A.No.82 of 2025 had been filed seeking to set aside the common order dated 3.9.2024 in A.No.3995 of 2023 in C.S.D.No.95746 of 2019. This Original Side Appeal pertains to condoning the delay in representing the plaint. O.S.A.No.83 of 2025 had been filed seeking to set aside the common order dated 3.9.2024 in A.No.3996 of 2023 in C.S.D.No.95746 of 2019. This Original Side Appeal pertains to condoning the delay in paying the deficit court fees.

7. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.

8. In short, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the delay in representing the plaint and also the delay in paying the deficit court fees occurred in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and that the same was neither willful nor wanton. He would further submit that the claim of the appellant against the respondent genuine and flows from the said commercial transactions, and also that it was only for this genuine reason that the delay had occurred.

9. Upon hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the materials available on record we hold as follows;

10. It is settled law that, in cases pertaining to condonation of delay, the delay can be condoned only upon sufficient cause being shown and also the delay being satisfactorily explained. This settled proposition has been reiterated in a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.

11. A few relevant and recent judgments in this regard are, Project Director, National Highways No.45E and 220, National Highways Authority of India Vs. A.Padmini and another [2024 SCC Online Mad 11798], Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others [(2013) 12 SCC 649] and Basawaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81].

12. Upon perusal of the affidavit of the appellant filed in support of A.Nos.3995 and 3996 of 2023 before the Learned Master, seeking condonation of delay, we find that the reasons attributed to the delay is the Covid pandemic and also the inability of the appellant to mobilise funds to represent the plaint and also to pay the deficit court fees. That apart, no further reasons have been stated.

13. Upon a further consideration of these reasons, we find that though the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic might constitute sufficient cause, still, the same has to be satisfactorily explained by the appellant while seeking condonation of delay, which in this case is huge.

14. We also find that, though the reason for the delay has been attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic, the same has not been satisfactorily explained. Infact, there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the enormous period of delay, let alone a satisfactory explanation.

15. That apart, we also find that the appellant has filed a suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.2.5 Crores. We are shocked to find that the court fee initially paid by affixture on the plaint at the time of presentation was only Rs.10/-. The Registry had rightly returned the plaint and called for payment of the deficit court fees. Thereafter, it took three long years for the appellant to represent the plaint for the first time on 2.8.2022. However, this was done without complying with the requirement of paying the deficit court fees. Finally, the court fee was paid only on 15.10.2022. At this juncture, it is worth extracting the relevant paragraph in the common order of the Learned Master dated 2.12.2022 which, at paragraph 6, reads as follows: “The plaint was returned for the first time in the year 2019 for want of court fee. Only a court fee stamp for Rs.10/- was affixed with the plaint at the time of presentation. The recovery amount is nearly 2 1/2 crores. The required court fee to be paid along with the plaint would have been nearly 2 1/2 lakhs. The Registry while returning the plaint mentioned specifically to pay the deficit court fee. After three years of time when it was represented for the first time on 02.08.2022, the same was not complied and the court fee is paid only on 15.10.2022.”

16. From the above, we find that the callous conduct of the appellant in representing the plaint and in paying the deficit court fee is shocking. It also raises serious doubts about the intention of the appellant to prosecute this lis. Therefore, this callous and lethargic attitude of the appellant is highly deplorable. It amounts to harassing the respondents under the prolonged a prolonged threat of legal proceedings. Such conduct amounts to an abuse of the process of law and should not be encouraged by the Courts.

17. Though the appellant has stated that the delay was caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the time taken to mobilise the funds to represent the application, we find that the said averment is very vague and would by itself not constitute sufficient cause. Further, there is no explanation whatsoever, much less a satisfactorily explanation, for the long period of delay in representing the plaint and paying the deficit court fees.

18. Therefore, we find that the appellant has miserably failed to plead and establish sufficient cause or to satisfactorily explain the long period of delay in representing the plaint and paying the deficit court fees. Further, despite the claim amount being a sum of about Rs.2.5 crores, the conduct of the appellant, as explained in the preceding paragraphs, would show that the present proceedings are nothing, but an abuse of the process of law intended to prolong the litigation, thereby exposing the respondents to prolonged agony and harassment, which is against the interest of justice.

19. Therefore, we find that the Learned Master and the Learned Single Judge of this Court were both right in dismissing both the applications of the appellant, one seeking condonation of delay in representing the plaint and the other seeking condonation of delay in paying the deficit court fees. Therefore we dismiss both these Original Side Appeals and confirm the said dismissal orders of the Learned Master and the Learned Single Judge. We also deem it a fit case to aware realistic cost, which we proceed to do as hereunder.

20. We find that by paying a mere court fee of Rs.10/-, for a money claim of around Rs.2.5 crores and thereafter representing the plaint and paying the deficit court fees after three long years, the appellant has made a mockery of the entire judicial system and abused the legal process, warranting the imposition of heavy costs. This conduct of the appellant amounts to showing total disregard and disrespect for the legal system.

21. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 344, at paragraph 37, held that it has become an unfortunate practice to direct parties to bear their own costs and that such a practice encourages the filing of frivolous suits and the taking of untenable defences. It further held that, even in such cases, when costs are awarded, they are ordinarily unrealistic and merely nominal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further explained that Section 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Code provides for costs to follow the event and it is implicit that costs should be those reasonably incurred by the successful party, except in cases where the Court, in its discretion, directs otherwise. It further held that costs should be actual and reasonable and should include court fees, lawyers' fees, typing fees and other costs relating to the litigation.

22. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi and others Vs. Nirmala Devi and others reported in

2011(8) SCC 249, in relation to the award of costs, held at paragraphs 54 to 56 as follows: “54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic as to what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different Courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter-affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee, etc.

55. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The appellants in the instant case have harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years.

56. On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned impugned order/judgment. These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation. The appellants are directed to pay the costs imposed by this Court along with costs imposed by the High Court to the respondents within six weeks from today.”

23. In the light of the above said judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as regards award of costs, in the instant case, we find that the appellant has dragged on this litigation purely by his callous attitude, for an unnecessarily long period of time, i.e., seven long years and paid a pittance of Rs.10/- as court fee towards a suit claim of Rs.2.5 crores, whereby the respondents have been exposed to prolonged litigation and agony, this according to us amounts to harassment and abuse of process of law, and hence this is a fit case for awarding costs, which should also be realistic.

24. We have also kept in mind the fact that the respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation from the Court of the Learned Master up to this Bench for an unnecessarily long period just because of the callous attitude of the appellant.

25. In the light of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and our finding above, we award a sum of Rs.25,000/- as costs in each of these appeals, after taking into consideration the practical realities of the expenses incurred by the respondents in contesting this litigation before the different forums of this Court.

26. We also find that it would be in the interest of justice to award the said costs so as to curtail and discourage if not to prevent any such abusive litigation in future. We are mindful of the fact that the said costs have been awarded by us in keeping with the settled principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgements stated supra.

27. We therefore direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- in each Original Side Appeal as costs to the respondents, within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

28. These Original Side Appeals are thereby dismissed with an order as to costs as mentioned above. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VKR

To The Sub Assistant Registrar (Original Side) High Court of Madras, Chennai.

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. VKR OSA Nos.82 and 83 of 2025 14-10-2026