.kalyani naicker(died) v. Saravana Naicker

Madras HC15 Dec 2025CMP/19636/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 274 days' delay in filing second appeal; sufficient cause; illness of second petitioner; treatment at Government Primary Health Centre, Kelambakkam, Kancheepuram District; certification by senior civil surgeon; unable to approach counsel; CMP.No.19636 of 2001 in S.A.SR37822 of 2001; connected CMP.Nos.6204, 6206, 6209 & 1862 of 2019 in S.A.No.1200 of 2000; Madras High Court; Justice V. Lakshminarayanan; appeal of the year 2000 not dismissed for default despite respondents' counsel absent; legal representatives brought on record (CMP.No.20541 of 2021; CMP.Nos.947, 948, 949 of 2010); Registry to number appeal and list for admission.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the delay of 274 days in filing the second appeal; Registry directed to number the appeal and list it for admission. ¶¶42

.kalyani naicker(died) Vs Saravana Naicker — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the delay of 274 days in filing the second appeal; Registry directed to number the appeal and list it for admission.

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 274 days in filing the second appeal (S.A.No.1200 of 2000 / S.A.SR37822 of 2001) should be condoned on the ground of sufficient cause shown.

¶¶38

Court's answer

Although the respondents' counsel did not appear despite repeated opportunities, the court declined to dismiss the second appeal for default, considering that the appeal pertains to the year 2000.

¶¶38

Ratio / Principle

On going through the affidavit, the court found that the second petitioner was taking treatment at the Government Primary Health Centre, Kelambakkam, Kancheepuram District, and that the senior civil surgeon certified that the second petitioner was suffering from illness.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

Because the second petitioner was ill and was not in a position to approach counsel to file the appeal, the court found sufficient cause and condoned the delay of 274 days in filing the second appeal.ratio¶¶42
The civil miscellaneous petition was allowed, and the Registry was directed to number the appeal and list it for admission.ratio¶¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (V. Lakshminarayanan, J.), 15.12.2025 — CMP.No.19636 of 2001 in S.A.SR37822 of 2001 and CMP.Nos.6204, 6206, 6209 & 1862 of 2019 in S.A.No.1200 of 2000: Condonation of delay — Delay of 274 days in filing the second appeal of the year 2000 condoned on the ground of sufficient cause: the affidavit showed that the second petitioner was taking treatment at the Government Primary Health Centre, Kelambakkam, Kancheepuram District, and the senior civil surgeon certified that the second petitioner was suffering from illness, leaving him not in a position to approach counsel to file the appeal. The petition had been pending before the court for 24 years; the original counsel for the respondents (Mr.L.Mohan) had given up practice, and the counsel who reported entry of appearance (Mr.Balamurugan) did not appear even on the date of hearing; the court nonetheless declined to dismiss the appeal for default given the age of the appeal. Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed; Registry directed to number the appeal and list it for admission. (P2–P6 on record as LRs of the deceased sole appellant/petitioner by order dated 17.06.2025 in CMP.No.20541 of 2021; R11–R16 on record as LRs of the deceased R2 by order dated 06.11.2025 in CMP.Nos.947, 948 and 949 of 2010.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.12.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶5

CMP.No.19636 of 2001 in S.A.SR37822 of 2001 & CMP.Nos.6204, 6206, 6209 & 1862 of 2019 in S.A.No.1200 of 2000

¶6

1.Kalyani Naicker (Died)

2.Indirani

3.K.Elumalai

4.K.Sivagami

5.K.Murugan

¶11

6.K.Shanmugam

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

(P2 to P6 are brought on record as lrs of the deceased sole appellant/petitioner vide court order dated 17.06.2025 made in CMP.No.20541 of 2021)

¶14

Vs.

¶15

1.Saravana Naicker

¶16

2.Raghavana Naicker (Died)

¶17

3.Desingh

¶18

4.Indirani

¶19

5.Kutti

¶20

6.Devandran

¶21

7.Chidambaram

¶22

Page 1 of 5

¶23

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

¶24

8.Minor Parthiban

¶25

9.Minor Loganathan 10.Minor Sallapthy (R8 to R10 minors are represented by their mother and guardian Indirani)

¶26

11.Balasundaram 12Shanthi

¶27

13.Ponnammal 14.Indhirani 15.Kallachi 16.Sargunapathy

¶28

... Respondents

¶29

(R2 Died, R11 to R16 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased R2 vide order dated 06.11.2025 made in CMP.Nos.947, 948, and 949 of 2010 in SA.SR.37822 of 2001.)

¶30

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan

¶31

ORDER

¶32

I posted this Miscellaneous Petition for appearance of the

¶33

respondents. Originally, the counsel, who appeared for the respondents in this application, was one Mr.L.Mohan. He sent words to this court through Mr.Parthasarathy that he has since given up practice and made a request that notice be taken directly to the parties. By an order dated 04.09.2025, I requested Mr.J.Srinivasa

¶34

Page 2 of 5

¶35

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

¶36

Mohan to serve notice on the respondents in CMP.No.6204 of 2019 etc in S.A.No.1200 of 2000 as well as in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

¶37

Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan took notice and a counsel, by name Mr.Balamurugan, reported that he had entered appearance for the respondents. Thereafter, he did not appear before this Court. I adjourned the matter repeatedly hoping that the counsel will surface either to oppose the application or to say no objection. To give a last opportunity, I posted the matter today. Even today, only Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan is present.

¶38

The second appeal being of the year 2000, I am not inclined to take a harsh stand and dismiss the appeal for default. At the same time, I have to take into consideration that this petition has been before this court for 24 years to get the delay of 274 days in filing the appeal condoned.

¶39

On going through the affidavit, it becomes clear that the second petitioner was taking treatment at the Government Primary Health Centre, Kelambakkam, Kancheepuram District. The senior civil surgeon has also certified that the second petitioner was suffering

¶40

Page 3 of 5

¶41

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

¶42

from illness. The second petitioner was not in a position to approach the counsel of this Court to file an appeal on account of his illness. Hence, I find sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶43