Allowed¶19

P Padma v. S C Balaji

Madras HC17 Nov 2025CMP/13017/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 326 days delay; Section 96 C.P.C. appeal; O.S.No.105 of 2017; Principal District Judge, Tiruppur; money decree; S.C.Balaji; third defendant appellant; commercial division appeal misclassification; regular appeal suit numbering; C.M.P.No.13017 of 2024; Madras High Court; decision dated 17.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 326 days in preferring Appeal (CAD) SR.No.59753 of 2024 condoned; Registry directed to number the matter as a regular appeal suit if otherwise in order. ¶19

P Padma Vs S C Balaji — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.P.No.13017 of 2024

¶2

in Appeal (CAD) SR.No.59753 of 2024

¶3

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.

¶4

[Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.] O.S.No.105 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge,

¶5

st Tiruppur, filed by S.C.Balaji, the 1 respondent herein, was allowed by the trial Court and a money decree was passed against the defendants. hallenging the judgment and decree, appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C.,

¶6

rd st nd preferred by the 3 defendant. The 1 and 2 defendants are arrayed as st respondents 2 and 3. The successful plaintiff arrayed as 1 respondent.

¶7

2. The Registry has assigned Appeal (CAD) SR.No.59753 of 2024 indicating as if it was a commercial division appeal. This classification is factually not correct, as the appeal is not directed against the judgment or decree rendered by a Commercial Court.

¶8

1/4

¶9

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

¶10

3. Be that as it may, there is a delay of 326 days in preferring the appeal and therefore, the appellant has taken out an application in C.M.P.No.13017 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay. The Court notice

¶11

st sent to the 1 respondent, who is the successful plaintiff, was received by him on 23.08.2024. Since there was delay in serving notice to the other respondents, this Court has ordered paper publication and the same was also effected on 30.10.2024. On the very same day, the Court notice to R2 and R3 was also served and acknowledgments were received.

¶12

4. When the matter was listed today, with the names of the respondents printed in the cause list, the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant present. There was no representation for the respondents.

¶13

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has not received any instructions from his client regarding the filing of execution

¶14

st petition by the 1 respondent.

¶15

2/4

¶16

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

¶17

6. Considering the reason stated in the affidavit for condonation of

¶18