Dismissed¶¶36

E. Karunakaran v. E. Sivamani

Madras HC1 Apr 2025CMP/7526/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 1694 days; Order 41 Rule 3A CPC; Section 5 Limitation Act; Section 96 CPC appeal; partition suit O.S.No.497 of 2015; preliminary decree eight equal shares; sufficient cause; liberal construction; negligence; protracting litigation; possession 284 sq.ft.; patta; final decree proceedings; rejection of un-numbered appeal suit; Madras High Court; N. Sathish Kumar; 01.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

The condonation petition was filed only to protract the partition suit to the maximum extent; the contentions that possessory right cannot be partitioned and that the property cannot be divided have no legs to stand and are matters decidable only in the final decree proceedings. ¶¶30

E. Karunakaran Vs E. Sivamani — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1694 days in filing the appeal suit (under Section 96 CPC) against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2020 in O.S.No.497 of 2015 should be condoned under Order 41 Rule 3A CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶¶22

Court's answer

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

There is no sufficient reason in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone such huge delay; casual filing without proper reasons cannot be condoned, and 'sufficient cause' merits liberal construction only where no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

Where there is no sufficient cause, the delay should not be condoned, as doing so amounts to discretion not being exercised judicially; hence the Court found no merits to condone the 1694-day delay in filing the appeal.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J.), CMP.No.7526 of 2025 in AS.SRNo.16216 of 2025 (decided 01.04.2025): Dismissed a petition under Order 41 Rule 3A CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 1694 days' delay in filing an appeal under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2020 of the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.497 of 2015, a partition suit in which a preliminary decree dividing the property into eight equal shares had been passed. Held: the affidavit disclosed no sufficient reason for the huge delay; the petition appeared filed only to protract the partition suit; the petitioner's contentions that possessory right cannot be partitioned and that patta-based property cannot be divided had no legs to stand and belonged to final decree proceedings; where no sufficient cause exists, condoning delay amounts to judicial discretion not being exercised. Petition dismissed; un-numbered appeal suit rejected; no costs; notice to respondents dispensed with.

¶1

CMP.No.7526 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CMP.No.7526 of 2025 in AS.SRNo.16216 of 2025

E.Karunakaran

Petitioner(s)

1.E.Sivamani

2.E.Kumar

¶12

3.E.Janakiraman

¶13

4.G.Selvakumari

¶14

5.D.Raja Kumari

¶15

6.C.Saraswathi

¶16

7.V.Devika

¶17

Respondent(s)

¶18

Prayer in CMP.No.12720 of 2024: Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 3Aof CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 1694 days in filing the above appeal.

¶19

Prayer in Appeal Suit: Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2020 in O.S.No.497 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Subramanian

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 1694 days

¶23

in filing the above appeal.

¶24

1/4

¶25

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

¶26

CMP.No.7526 of 2025

¶27

The suit has been filed for partition. The petitioner was arrayed as the second defendant. Preliminary decree has been passed to divide the suit property into eight equal shares.

¶28

It is the contention of the petitioner that since the defendants 1 and 3 are brothers contesting the matter, he trusted them, however, later he came to know that the defendants 1 and 3 have not properly contested the matter. According to him, he is in possession of 284 sq.ft., and the property cannot be partitioned. The suit has been filed only on the basis of patta, therefore, there cannot be partition.

¶29

Since, no adverse order is passed against the respondents, notice to them is dispensed with. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.

¶30

On perusal of the entire affidavit, this Court is of the view that this petition has been filed to condone such huge delay only in order to protract the partition suit to the maximum extent. The contention that possessory right held cannot be partitioned has no legs to stand. Similarly, the contention that

¶31

2/4

¶32

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

¶33

CMP.No.7526 of 2025

¶34

property cannot be divided also has no legs to stand. These factors can be decided only in the final decree proceedings. At any event, there is no sufficient reasons in the entire affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone such huge delay.

¶35

Of course, the expression“sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. Casually filing the petition to condone the delay in filing without any proper reasons, such huge delay cannot be condoned. A Court granting indulgence must be satisfied that there was deligence on the part of the appellant and that he was not guilty of any negligence whatsoever. Where there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the said delay should not be condoned as it amounts to a case of discretion not being exercised judicially. Hence, I do not find any merits to condone such huge delay in filing the appeal.

¶36