Petition to condone a 4048-day delay in filing a writ appeal against a 2012 order was dismissed; the only explanation given—entrusting the appeal to legal-aid counsel who failed to file it—was found unsatisfactory and without day-wise particulars. The connected writ appeal was rejected.
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.(MD) No.415 of 2024 in W.A.(MD) SR. No.87 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.P.(MD) No.415 of 2024 in W.A.(MD) SR. No.87 of 2024 and W.A.(MD) SR. No.87 of 2024
V.Kulandhai Velu ... Petitioner in C.M.P./ Appellant in W.A.
-vs-
PRAYER in C.M.P.(MD) No.415 of 2024: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 4048 days in filing the Writ Appeal.
Page 1 of 5
C.M.P.(MD) No.415 of 2024 in W.A.(MD) SR. No.87 of 2024
PRAYER in W.A.(MD) SR. No.87 of 2024: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order dated 12.09.2012 passed in W.P. No. 12429 of 2000 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioner in CMA and : Mr.S.Boominathan Appellant in W.A. Additional Government Pleader
For 1st Respondent in CMA : Mr.T.Amjad Khan and W.A. Government Advocate
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]
The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed for condoning the delay of 4048 days in filing W.A.(MD) SR. No.87 of 2024.
Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent.
under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is
_____________ Page 2 of 5_
C.M.P.(MD) No.415 of 2024 in W.A.(MD) SR. No.87 of 2024
shown before the court for the delay. The petitioner who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day’s delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay. In the present case, this delay has not been explained to the satisfaction of the court.
_____________ Page 3 of 5_
C.M.P.(MD) No.415 of 2024 in W.A.(MD) SR. No.87 of 2024
Consequently, connected W.A.(MD) SR. No.87 of 2024 is rejected.
[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 18.01.2024
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No SJ
To
1.The Executive Engineer, Marudha Nadhi Project, Public Works Department, Pattiveeranpatti Division, Madurai District.
_____________ Page 4 of 5_
C.M.P.(MD) No.415 of 2024 in W.A.(MD) SR. No.87 of 2024
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
SJ
C.M.P.(MD) No.415 of 2024 in W.A.(MD) SR. No.87 of 2024
18.01.2024
_____________ Page 5 of 5_
1 issue framed by the court
Should the delay of 4048 days in filing the Writ Appeal be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.Kulandhai Velu
The Executive Engineer, Marudha Nadhi Project, Public Works Department, Pattiveeranpatti Division, Madurai District
The Labour Court, Thiruchirappali (Dindigul Camp)
D.Krishnakumar
R.Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
