Allowed¶27

Rathan Chandavath v. Neela Chidhambarakumari

Madras HC17 Dec 2025CMP/23417/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 66-day delay in filing appeal suit A.S. No. SR100485 of 2024; Madras High Court CMP No. 23417 of 2024; delay due to appellant's jaundice and treatment; certified copy applied on day of judgment; challenge to judgment and decree dated 04.03.2024 in C.O.S. No. 54 of 2023, Commercial Court / District Judge Cadre, Coimbatore; respondent absent despite counsel entering appearance; audience assured at stay-petition stage; Registry directed to number appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 66 days in filing A.S. No. SR100485 of 2024 condoned; Registry directed to number the appeal if otherwise in order; Registry directed to print the entering counsel's name when the stay application is taken up. ¶27

Rathan Chandavath Vs Neela Chidhambarakumari — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal (A.S. No. SR100485 of 2024) against the judgment and decree in C.O.S. No. 54 of 2023 should be condoned.

¶12

Court's answer

The delay of 66 days in filing the appeal A.S. No. SR100485 of 2024 is condoned.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order.

¶28

Key takeaways

The Registry is directed to print the name of the counsel who entered appearance in this petition when the application for stay is brought up before the Court.ratio¶29-30
Although there was no appearance for the respondent at the hearing of this petition, the respondent's counsel will be given an audience when a stay petition is moved before the Court.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (order made by C.V. Karthikeyan J.; bench comprising C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu JJ.), by order dated 17-12-2025 in CMP No. 23417 of 2024, allowed the petition and condoned a delay of 66 days in filing A.S. No. SR100485 of 2024, which challenges the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2024 in C.O.S. No. 54 of 2023 on the file of the Commercial Court / District Judge Cadre at Coimbatore. The delay was explained on the ground that although the certified copy was applied for on the very day of the judgment, the petitioner-appellant suffered from jaundice and underwent treatment, contacting his counsel only after recovery. Notice stood served on the respondent; her counsel had entered appearance but remained absent, and the Court assured that she would be given audience when a stay petition is moved. The Registry was directed to number the appeal if otherwise in order and to print the name of the entering counsel when the stay application is listed.

¶1

CMP No. 23417 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

CMP No. 23417 of 2024 in A.S. No.SR100485 of 2024

¶7

Rathan Chandavath

¶8

Appellant(s) Vs

¶9

Neela Chidhambarakumari

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER

¶12

To condone the delay of 66 days in filing the above AS. SR.100485/2024

¶13

For Appellant(s): M/s.J.Franklin

¶14

For Respondent(s): M/s. P. Mathivanan-No appearance

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

¶17

The application has been filed to condone the delay of 66 days in filing

¶18

the appeal by challenging the judgment and decree passed in C.O.S. No. 54 of

¶19

2023 dated 04.03.2024 on the file of the Commercial Court /District Judge Cadre at Coimbatore.

¶20

Notice had been directed to the respondent and the notice had also been

¶21

served.

¶22

1/3

¶23

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

¶24

CMP No. 23417 of 2024

¶25

A learned counsel had also entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. However, there is no appearance for the respondent. But we would certainly give an audience to the learned counsel, when a stay petition is moved before this Court.

¶26

Insofar the reason for the delay is concerned, it is stated that though certified copy has been applied on the same day of the judgment, after receipt of the order copy, the petitioner had suffered from jaundice and took treatment till the 2^nd week of July 2024. After having recovered from jaundice, he contacted his counsel and thereafter, the appeal has been preferred.

¶27