V.Ramalingam Vs K.Suriyakumar and another — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

V.Ramalingam Vs K.Suriyakumar and another — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both A.No.5479 of 2025 (condonation of 228 days' delay in representation of plaint) and A.No.5480 of 2025 (condonation of defective presentation) allowed, with the condition reserving questions of limitation to be raised in the main suit; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 228 days in representation of the plaint before this Court should be condoned (A.No.5479 of 2025). +1 more

Court's answer

Ailments due to age and injuries sustained in an accident, pleaded and proved through a detailed affidavit, which prohibited the petitioner from approaching counsel, constitute sufficient reason for allowing both applications (condonation of the 228-day delay in representation and of the defective presentation); the second respondent had endorsed no objection.

Ratio / Principle

The allowance is made subject to a condition: any question of limitation as a defence for the first respondent is to be taken into account, and a right to raise such questions of limitation is reserved in the main suit (the order words the reservation as being 'to the first petitioner'); this meets the ends of justice, avoids multiplicity of proceedings and leads to final disposal of the lis.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common Order dated 13.11.2025 (Master) in A.No.5479 and A.No.5480 of 2025 in CS.DR.No.66210 of 2025 — Condonation. The applicant/plaintiff's plaint, initially filed for declaration and other reliefs before the Hon'ble XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, was amended to claim specific performance; the suit value rose, whereupon that court found it had no jurisdiction and returned the plaint for representation before the proper court within 30 days. Owing to an accident suffered by the plaintiff, his ailments as a senior citizen and his inability to raise court fee, the plaint was presented defectively with a delay of 228 days in representation. Held: aging, ailments and accident injuries, pleaded and proved through a detailed affidavit and prohibiting the petitioner from approaching counsel, are a sufficient reason for allowing the applications; the second respondent endorsed no objection. Both applications were allowed with the condition that any question of limitation as a defence for the first respondent be taken into account, a right to raise such questions of limitation in the main suit being reserved; no costs.

A.No.5479 of 2025 and A.No.5480 of 2025 in

CS.DR.No.66210 of 2025

MASTER

13.11.2025

COMMON ORDER

A.No.5479 of 2025 filed by the applicant / plaintiff to condone the delay of 228 days in representation of plaint before the court and A.No.5480 of 2025 is an application filed by the same petitioner to condone the defective presentation.

In both applications this petitioner narrated same facts which is as below. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above suit, initially which is one for declaration and other relief filed at Hon'ble XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. After that the plaint has been amended for the relief of specific performance. Thus, the value of the suit has been raised and the above court found that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit and returned the plaint for presentation before proper court with a time frame of 30 days.

While so, the plaintiff / petitioner met with an accident and unable to respond his counsel for proper presentation of plaint before this Court. Also, the plaintiff is unable to raise the court fee since he is a senior citizen with ailments. All the above lead to a situation that presentation of plaint in a defective manner as well as there is a delay of 228 days in representation of the plaint. Hence, this applications are to be allowed.

Heard. Both side. Records perused. For R2 side it is endorsed as no objection. Since, the facts for both applications are same, both applications are taken together for

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

orders.

From records, it is clear that since expansion of value of the subject matter of

the suit the plaintiff forced to file this plaint before this court. The reason for default assigned as aging, ailments due to aging as well as injuries sustained in an accident by the petitioner. The petitioner also filed a detailed affidavit to that effect.

By filing a detailed affidavit this petitioner plead and prove the reason for default. Ailments due to age, aging and injuries prohibiting the petitioner from approaching the counsel is a sufficient reason for allowing the applications. Anyhow, while allowing this applications any question of limitation as a defence for the first respondent ought to be taken into account. This point can be solved by reserving a right to raise such questions of limitation in the main suit to the first petitioner. With this condition, this applications can be allowed. This will alone meet the end of justice as well as avoid multiplicity of proceedings between the parties as well as lead to a final disposal of lis.

In fine, both the above applications allowed with such conditions. No cost.

MASTER

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