Allowed¶31

Kamala v. the Block Development Officer

Madras HC16 Oct 2025CMP/9718/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court condones 982-day delay in CMP No. 9718 of 2023 seeking to set aside the 14.11.2019 dismissal-for-default order connected to S.A.No.1085 of 2008; COVID-19 period (March 2020 - August 2022) necessarily excluded in computing delay; care of sick mother accepted as plausible reason; benefit of doubt given to appellants (Kamala, Suresh, Premalatha, Jayalakshmi); petition allowed and Office directed to number the restoration petition.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 982 days condoned and the condonation petition allowed; the Office is directed to number the restoration petition. ¶31

Kamala Vs the Block Development Officer — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP No. 9718 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-10-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

CMP No. 9718 of 2023 in S.A.No.1085 of 2008

¶7

1. Kamala

¶8

w/o chinnapaiyan, Vedugathampatti Village, Thirumalagiri village, Salem Tk

¶9

2. Suresh

¶10

s/o chinnapaiyan, Vedugathampatti Village, Thirumalagiri village, Salem Tk

¶11

3. Premalatha

¶12

w/o Baskar, Vedugathampatti Village, Thirumalagiri village, Salem Tk

¶13

4. Jayalakshmi

¶14

w/o Murugan, Vedugathampatti Village, Thirumalagiri village, Salem Tk

¶15

Appellant(s)

¶16

¶17

The Block Development Officer Salem Panchayat Union, Salem

¶18

Respondent(s)

¶19

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

¶20

CMP No. 9718 of 2023

¶21

PRAYER

¶22

to condone the delay of 982 days in seeking to set aside the order of dismissal dated 14.11.2019.

¶23

For Appellant(s): T.Sezhian

¶24

For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Tamilnidhi, AGP (CS)

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This is an application filed to condone the delay of 982 days in filing the application to set aside the order of dismissal of default dated 14.11.2019.

¶27

2.The reason given in paragraph No.6 of the affidavit is that when the appeal was listed for hearing, the counsel had sent a registered letter to the appellant calling upon him to come over and give instructions. As the petitioner was residing in a remote village, the letter was returned as “No Such Addressee”. The petitioner further states that his mother has fallen sick and therefore, as the son, he had to be with her in order assist her recuperation. By the time COVID intervened and hence, he could meet the counsel only in August, 2022. At that time, he came to know that the appeal had been dismissed for default and immediately he filed an application for restoration.

¶28

3.Though the period of delay seems to be enormous; the period from March, 2020 and August, 2022 when the Country was suffering due to pandemic, will necessarily have to be excluded. If the said period is excluded,

¶29

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

¶30

CMP No. 9718 of 2023

¶31

the number of days delay is not much. Further, the reason that the appellant was taking care of his mother is plausible. Giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant, the delay of 982 days is condoned and this petition stands allowed.

¶32

16-10-2025

¶33

krk Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶34

NOTE : Office is directed to number the restoration petition.

¶35

¶36

1.The Block Development Officer Salem Panchayat Union, Salem

¶37

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

¶38