Dismissed¶50

M.T.Sathiapa Thevar v. M.Thalaimuthu Ambalam(Died)

Madras HC27 Feb 2025CMP(MD)/1135/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay refused; 937 days delay; review application Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code 1908; Rev.Aplc(MD) SR.No.48524 of 2024; S.A.No.938 of 2008 judgment dated 12.02.2020; specific performance suit decree reversed; certified copy applied only on 10.07.2024; no explanation or day-wise reasons; delay condonation not a matter of right; finality of decision on merits; Madras High Court; C.M.P dismissed and review application rejected; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The reasons given in the affidavit show that the petitioner was inactive ('sleeping') from 12.02.2020, having applied for the certified copy of the second appeal judgment and decree only on 10.07.2024, and no reasons for each day of the delay were furnished. ¶45

M.T.Sathiapa Thevar Vs M.Thalaimuthu Ambalam(Died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 937 days in filing the review application (under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code 1908, to review the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2020 in S.A.No.938 of 2008) should be condoned.

¶34

Court's answer

¶45

Ratio / Principle

No explanation whatsoever was given for the huge delay; the averments indicated the application was filed on the assumption that condonation of delay would follow as a matter of right, making the reasons insufficient even to consider the application on merits.

¶49

Key takeaways

Allowing a review with huge delay to be filed in a casual manner after a case decided on merits has reached finality would leave litigation without end; hence such a delay without plausible explanation could not be condoned.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, single judge (N. Sathish Kumar, J.), order dated 27.02.2025 in C.M.P (MD) No.1135 of 2025 in Rev.Aplc(MD) SR.No.48524 of 2024: Application to condone a delay of 937 days in filing a review application under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code 1908, directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2020 in S.A.No.938 of 2008 (by which the second appeal reversed the decree of a specific performance suit), was dismissed. Although the appeal had been disposed of on 12.02.2020, the petitioner sought a certified copy of the judgment only on 10.07.2024, gave no explanation for the intervening period and no reason for each day of the delay; the Court observed that permitting casually filed, hugely delayed reviews after a case decided on merits reaches finality would leave litigation endless, found no merits in the application, dismissed it, and consequently rejected the review application, with no order as to costs.

¶1

C.M.P (MD) No.1135 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 27.02.2025

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

C.M.P (MD) No.1135 of 2025

¶7

in Rev.Aplc(MD) SR.No.48524 of 2024

¶8

M.T.Sathiappa Thevar S/o.Mathuva Thevar .... Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.M.Thalaimuthu Ambalam (Died)

¶11

S/o.Malayandi Ambalam

¶12

O.B.Kesavan (Died) S/o.O.M.Balakrishnan

¶13

O.M.Umarani

¶14

W/o.Late O.K.Mahesh

¶15

Minor O.M.Navaneetha

¶16

D/o.O.K.Mahesh

¶17

Plot No.A-6/4. K.K.Nagar

¶18

Madurai – 625 020

¶19

(R4 is represented by her mother and guardian of R3)

¶20

T.Thangaraj

¶21

S/o.Late M.Thalaimuthu Ambalan

¶22

T.Mohan

¶23

S/o.Late M.Thalaimuthu Ambalam

¶24

1/5

¶25

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

¶26

C.M.P (MD) No.1135 of 2025

¶27

T.Rajaram

¶28

S/o.Late M.Thalaimuthu Ambalam

¶29

D.Mariammal W/o.Durairaj

¶30

M.Seethi Ammal W/o.Malaisamy

¶31

T.Ponnuthai

¶32

D/o.Late M.Thalaimuthu Ambalam

¶33

....Respondents

¶34

C.M.P (MD) No.1135 of 2025 :Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 937 days in filing the above review application.

¶35

Rev.Aplc(MD) SR.No.48524 of 2024: Review Application has been filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code 1908 to review the judgment and decree of this Court dated 12.02.2020 made in S.A.No.938 of 2008.

¶36

For Petitioner ... Mr.Saibu For Mr.A.Arumugam of M/s.Ajmal Associates (Law Firm) For Respondent ... Mr.J.Ramakrishnan for R1 and R2 ------

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 937

¶39

days in filing the review application.

¶40

The reason assigned in the application to the effect that he has

¶41

2/5

¶42

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

¶43

C.M.P (MD) No.1135 of 2025

¶44

applied for certified copy of the sale deed to the First Joint Sub-Registrar, Madurai South on 13.06.2024 and received the certified copy on the same day and thereafter, he applied for certified copy of judgment and decree in second appeal on 10.07.2024 and it was made ready on 16.07.2024 and delivered to him on 18.07.2024 and thereafter, he has filed the review application on 16.08.2024 and hence, there is a delay of 937 days in filing the review application.

¶45

It is relevant to note that second appeal was disposed of on merits on 12.02.2020 by reversing the decree of the specific performance suit and only on 10.07.2024, the petitioner applied for certified copy of judgment and decree in second appeal. The reasons given in the affidavit itself would indicate that the petitioner was sleeping from 12.02.2020 and he has applied for certified copy only on 10.07.2024. The reasons for each day delay has not been given by the petitioner.

¶46

3/5

¶47

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

¶48

C.M.P (MD) No.1135 of 2025

¶49

When a case has been decided on merits and reached finality, filing a review with huge delay in a casual manner is allowed, there will not be any end to the litigation. The reasons assigned by the petitioner is not sufficient even to consider the application on merits when a person approaches the Court with such a huge delay and without plausible explanation. The averments in the affidavit itself indicate that no explanation whatsoever has been given for such huge delay and this application has been filed thinking that as a matter of right, the delay would be condoned.

¶50

Therefore, I do not find any merits in the application and the same is dismissed. Consequently, review application in Rev.Aplc(MD) SR.No. 48524 of 2024 stands rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

27.02.2025

gpa

4/5

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

¶55

C.M.P (MD) No.1135 of 2025

¶56

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J