Allowed¶6

I.Geetha v. Mr.S.Vinayagam and 7 others

Madras HC16 Oct 2025A/4810/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condolence-of-delay application; 357 days' delay in re-presenting probate original petition OP DR. No.32598 of 2025; original will misplaced and traced 15.09.2024; no proof of explanation; merits over technicalities; analogy drawn from Division Bench order in OSA.No. 66 of 2023 (267-day delay condoned, Rs.25,000/- cost deleted); application allowed on terms, no cost; Madras High Court; order pronounced 16.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Application to condone the delay of 357 days in representing OP DR. No.32598 of 2025 allowed on terms, in the interest of justice, with no cost. ¶6

I.Geetha Vs Mr.S.Vinayagam and 7 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application to condone the delay of 357 days in representing OP DR. No.32598 of 2025 allowed on terms, in the interest of justice, with no cost.

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 357 days in representing (re-presenting) the original petition OP DR. No.32598 of 2025 (for probate of the applicant's grandfather's will) should be condoned.

¶7

Court's answer

No proof was filed to substantiate the applicant's explanation (misplacement and recovery of the original will), and the court was therefore unable to accept the explanation for the delay in representation.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Even though the reason stated was not satisfactory and justifiable, the court held that every litigation must be disposed of on merits rather than dismissed on mere technicalities.

¶15

Key takeaways

Following the analogy of the Division Bench order in OSA.No. 66 of 2023 (where a 267-day delay in re-presenting a petition was condoned and a Rs.25,000/- cost was deleted), the court was inclined to allow the condonation application on terms.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court — A.No.4810 of 2025 in OP DR. No.32598 of 2025 (original petition for probate of the applicant's grandfather's will) — application to condone a delay of 357 days in representing the petition — the petition had been returned to be filed along with the original will; the original will was misplaced and traced only on 15.09.2024, after which counsel re-presented it with a delay of 357 days — no proof was filed to substantiate the explanation, and the court was unable to accept it — nevertheless, holding that every litigation must be disposed of on merits rather than dismissed on mere technicalities, and following the analogy of a Division Bench order in OSA.No. 66 of 2023 (where a 267-day delay in re-presenting was condoned and a cost of Rs.25,000/- was deleted), the court allowed the application on terms, in the interest of justice, with no cost. Order pronounced 16.10.2025.

¶1

¶2

A.No.4810 of 2025

¶3

¶4

OP DR. No.32598 of 2025

¶5

MASTER 16.10.2025

¶6

Order

¶7

1. This application has been filed to condone the delay of 357 days in representing the original petition.

¶8

2. The applicant has filed the above original petition to probate the will of the applicant's grandfather and the same was returned to be filed along with original will. The original will was misplaced and after thorough search made the applicant traced the original will only on 15.09.2024 and immediately she handed over it to her counsel who in turn took immediate steps to represent the original petition with a delay 357 days.

¶9

3. No proof filed to substantiate the same and hence this court is unable to accept the explanation given by the applicant for the delay in representation.

¶10

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.

¶11

“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

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

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.”

¶15

5. Though the reason stated by the applicant in the present case is not satisfactory and justifiable, this court does not want to dismiss this application for these technical reasons. This court is of the opinion that every litigation must be disposed on merits rather dismissing on mere technicalities. Therefore, following the analogy in the order passed by our Hon'ble Division Bench in OSA.No. 66 of 2023, this court is inclined to allow this application on terms.

¶16

6. In fine, this application is allowed in the interest of justice. No cost.

¶17

MASTER

¶18

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

A.No.4810 of 2025

OP DR. No.32598 of 2025