Allowed

K.Gunasekar v. Mrs.Shanthasundari

Madras HC23 Sept 2025A/4651/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to condone a 466-day delay in re-presenting an original petition, attributed to delays in securing an attesting witness's affidavit and translating documents. Following prior orders of the Division Bench and a Single Judge, the court took a lenient view and allowed the application without costs.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 466 days in re-presenting OP.DR.No.20873 of 2024 condoned; no costs.

K.Gunasekar Vs Mrs.Shanthasundari — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

A.No.4651 of 2025

¶2

¶3

OP.DR.No.20873 of 2024

¶4

MASTER 23.09.2025

¶5

Order

¶6

1. This application has been filed by the applicant to condone the delay of 466 days in representing the original petition in OP.DR.No.20873 of 2024.

¶7

2. The reason stated for the delay in re-presentation is that, anunavoidable

¶8

delay occurred in securing the affidavit of the attesting witness to the Will namely Mr.S.Sankaralingam, who is the senior citizen aged about 81 years and was undergoing medical treatment. Further, there was a delay in collecting certain necessary documents, obtaining instructions and translating the schedule of property from Tamil to English.

¶9

3. Now the point to be decided is that whether the delay of 466 days can be

¶10

condoned or not.

¶11

4. This court has come across an order of our Hon'ble Division Bench in OSA.No. 66 of 2023 to condone the delay of 267 days in representation in an application in which the Hon'ble Division Bench condoned the delay by deleting the cost imposed. The extracted portion is hereunder.

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

“ It is seen that the delay has occurred only in respect of re-presenting the original petition filed against the award passed by the first respondent Arbitrator and not in filing the same. Admittedly, this Court has dealt with umpteen number of cases, extending some leniency for condoning the delay. Applying the same analogy and also considering the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay in re-presenting the petition papers, this court is inclined to modify the order of the learned Judge, by deleting the costs of Rs.25,000/- imposed on the appellant, while condoning the delay in re-presenting the petition.”

¶14

This order of Hon'ble Division Bench was followed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in A.No. 1219 of 2023 in Arb.OP.DR.NO. 9142 of 2022 and the same was allowed without cost. The portion extracted is hereunder.

¶15

" In view of the earlier order passed by the learned single Judge in Applicatiion No. 1232 of 2023 dated 03.03.2023 which had been modified by the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No. 66 of 2023 by judgment dated 29.03.2023, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned master.

¶16

Accordingly, this application is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs".

¶17

5. Following the orders passed by our Hon'ble Division Bench in OSA.No. 66 of 2023 which was followed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in A.NO. 1219 of 2023 in Arb.OP.DR.No. 9142 of 2022, this court has no hesitation to take lenient view in this application and is inclined to allow this application.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Accordingly, this application is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶20

MASTER

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Gunasekar v. Mrs.Shanthasundari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Gunasekar v. Mrs.Shanthasundari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Case details

Similar cases

U.a.Surendra Vs a.Baranish

R.Nagarajan Vs Mrs.Sitalakshmi Ramanathan (Deceased) Mrs.IndiraJayaraman

Maheswari Prince Andrew Vs K.Kaveri

M/s. Kshema Power and Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private Limited

M.Sailaja and 2 others Vs State Bank of India and 2 others

Vella Jeenitha and 2 others Vs nil