The Madras High Court dismissed a writ miscellaneous petition filed to review an order dated 15.03.2017. Condonation of a 1274-day delay was refused as uncondonable, specifically rejecting the petitioner's claim that the COVID-19 pandemic caused the lapse.
Petition dismissed; Review Application 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.
W.M.P.No.25790 of 2022 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.93458 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.M.P.No.25790 of 2022 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.93458 of 2022
M.Veerappan .. Petitioner
v.
Writ Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1274 days in presenting the review application to review the order dated 15.03.2017 passed in W.P.No.23379 of 2013.
For Petitioner :: Mr.V.Ajayakumar
_____________ Page 1 of 5_
W.M.P.No.25790 of 2022 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.93458 of 2022
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Syed Mustafa Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) for R1 & R2 R3-Tribunal
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The review application has been filed with a delay of 1274 days in filing, to review the order of this Court dated 15.03.2017 in W.P.No.23379 of 2013.
Page 2 of 5
W.M.P.No.25790 of 2022 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.93458 of 2022
was unable to file the writ petition in time.
delay cannot be condoned by the Courts in a routine manner. Law of limitation is substantive. Rule is to file petition/appeal within the time contemplated under the statutes and rules. Condonation of delay is an exception. The Courts, in exercise of the power of discretion, are expected to be judicious in considering the length of delay and the reasons stated for condoning such long delay. Short delay in filing petitions will be considered normally by the Courts by taking a lenient view. However, enormous delay in filing petitions cannot be condoned in a routine manner by the Courts. Such enormous delay is uncondonable, in view of the fact that entertaining petitions after a long time would cause prejudice to the parties to the litigation. Once the issues reached finality, it cannot be unsettled after long years. The reason stated by the petitioner that the delay occurred due to Covid-19 is unacceptable, since the judgment sought to be reviewed was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 15.03.2017 and the Covid-19 pandemic period commenced in April, 2020 after a lapse of about three
_____________ Page 3 of 5_
W.M.P.No.25790 of 2022 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.93458 of 2022
years from the date of judgment. Thus the reasons stated for condoning the
enormous delay of 1274 days are unacceptable. In view of these facts, we are not convinced to entertain the petition and accordingly, the writ miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. Consequently,
Rev.Aplw.SR.No.93458 of 2022 stands rejected.
Index : yes/no (S.M.S.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.) Neutral citation : yes/no 27.11.2024 ss
To
Page 4 of 5
W.M.P.No.25790 of 2022 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.93458 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
ss
W.M.P.No.25790 of 2022 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.93458 of 2022
27.11.2024
_____________ Page 5 of 5_
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a delay of 1274 days in filing a review application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the alleged pandemic-induced delay justifies condoning an uncondonable delay of over three years.
Whether the review petition should be entertained given the enormity of the time lapse since the original judgment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Veerappan
Union of India represented by Secretary (Co-operation) Government of Puducherry
The Registrar of Cooperative Societies Co-operative Department Puducherry
The Registrar, CAT Madras Bench, Chennai
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
M.JOTHIRAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
