Petitioners sought condonation of a 5144-day delay in filing an appeal against a testamentary decree. Finding the explanation for the inordinate delay casual and false, and petitioners' bona fides doubtful, the court dismissed the condonation petition and rejected the appeal at the stage of filing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.P.No.22540 of 2024 in O.S.A.SR.No.28923 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
C.M.P.No.22540 of 2024
in
O.S.A.SR.No.28923 of 2024
Dilli Bai (since deceased) 1.Premavathi 2.Jamuna Ravi 3.Chitra 4.Maheswari 5.K.Balachander ... Petitioners Vs. Raja @ Rajendran ... Respondent
[Cause title accepted vide order of Court dated 05.08.2024 made in C.M.P.No.15766 of 2024 in O.S.A.SR.No.28923 of 2024]
Prayer in C.M.P.No.22540 of 2024 : Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules of Madras High Court
Page 1
C.M.P.No.22540 of 2024 in O.S.A.SR.No.28923 of 2024
read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 5144 days in filing the Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.SR.No.28923 of 2024.
Prayer in O.S.A.SR.No.28923 of 2024 : Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules r/w. Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2009 in T.O.S.No.26 of 2004 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Velmurugan for M/s.J.Eva Rosalin Santhakumari
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J. )
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 5144
days in filing the above Original Side Appeal as against the judgment and decree made by the learned Single Judge in T.O.S.No.26 of 2004 dated 08.09.2009.
2.The parties are relatives. The respondent is the son of one
Kathirvelu Achari and the petitioners 1 to 4 are daughters and 5th petitioner is the son of Kathirvelu Achari. After the death of Kathirvelu Achari in
Page 2
C.M.P.No.22540 of 2024 in O.S.A.SR.No.28923 of 2024
3.Now, the present appeal is filed nearly 14 years after the judgment in the testamentary proceedings. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioners have not given valid reasons for the inordinate delay of 14 years. In the affidavit filed by one of the petitioners namely Chitra, it is stated that her counsel had not intimated regarding filing of a regular appeal against the judgment in T.O.S.No.26 of 2004. It is further stated that the respondent had approached her and forced her to put her signature in the release deed. It is further stated that, after getting the release deed, she came to know that an order had been passed against the petitioners and that by virtue of the order passed by this Court which is impugned in the above Appeal, the respondent had made an attempt to get her signature for registering the release deed.
Page 3
C.M.P.No.22540 of 2024 in O.S.A.SR.No.28923 of 2024
4.The petitioners have come with a story which cannot be accepted by anyone. Despite the fact that the delay is more than 14 years, a casual explanation has been offered by the petitioners, ignoring the serious legal implications of entertaining this application. The delay of 5144 days, which is beyond 14 years, cannot be condoned unless there are very strong reasons and explanation for such a long delay. The only reason given is that the petitioners came to know about the adverse order in T.O.S.No.26 of 2004 only when the respondent tried to get a document registered, which is nothing but false which can never be an explanation for such a long delay. The petitioners have not even disclosed the date on which they came to know about the judgment in T.O.S.No.26 of 2004. Therefore, the bona fides of the petitioners is doubtful and this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioners for condoning such a long delay.
Page 4
C.M.P.No.22540 of 2024 in O.S.A.SR.No.28923 of 2024
5.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, O.S.A.SR.No.28923 of 2024 is rejected.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (P.D.B., J.) 04.11.2024
mkn
Internet : Yes
Page 5
C.M.P.No.22540 of 2024 in O.S.A.SR.No.28923 of 2024
S.S. SUNDAR, J. and P. DHANABAL, J.
mkn
C.M.P.No.22540 of 2024 in O.S.A.SR.No.28923 of 2024
04.11.2024
Page 6
1 issue framed by the court
Should the delay of 5144 days in filing the Original Side Appeal against the decree in T.O.S.No.26 of 2004 be condoned?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Premavathi
Jamuna Ravi
Chitra
Maheswari
K. Balachander
Raja @ Rajendran
S.S. Sundar
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
