Allowed¶20

E.Velu v. P.Abusa and Another

Madras HC18 Nov 2025A/5605/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Master order dated 18.11.2025 in A.No.5605 of 2025 in CS.No.469 of 2019 condoning 360-day delay in representing Application D.No.93960 of 2024; lenient view adopted following Division Bench order in OSA.No.66 of 2023 (delay of 267 days condoned, Rs.25,000/- costs deleted) and Single Judge order in A.No.1219 of 2023 in Arb.OP.DR.No.9142 of 2022; delay caused by erstwhile counsel's inaction despite follow-ups; change of vakalat obtained; condonation of delay in re-presentation; application allowed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 360-day delay in representing Application D.No.93960 of 2024 in CS.No.469 of 2019; no order as to costs. ¶20

E.Velu Vs P.Abusa and Another — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

A.No.5605 of 2025 in

¶3

CS.No.469 of 2019

MASTER

18.11.2025

ORDER

This application has been filed by the applicant to condone the delay of 360 days in representing the Application D.No.93960 of 2024 in the suit.

¶8

The reason stated for the delay in representation is that, the erstwhile

¶9

counsel has not taken any steps to number the application for over a year, despite consistent follow ups and so the applicant obtained change of vakalat and approached the present counsel on record.

¶10

Now the point to be decided is that whether the delay of 360 days can be condoned or not.

¶11

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

“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

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

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.”

¶16

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.

¶17

" 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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 hestitation to take lenient view in this application and is inclined to allow this application.

¶20

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

¶21

MASTER

¶22

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

E.Velu v. P.Abusa and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Velu v. P.Abusa and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Prasant Vs Manappuram Finance (Tn) Private Limited

V.Ramalingam Vs K.Suriyakumar and another

Subramanian Vs Kanakamaniammal

Polypipes India Private Limited Vs M Prasanna Kumar, Propietor of Sri Vishnu Pvc Pipe Factory

Karunakaran Vs Mr.R.Soundarajan

R.Ravinder Kumar Vs S.Brighton