Allowed¶32

Ramsait v. Ramanathan

Madras HC7 Nov 2025CMP(MD)/14136/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 401 days; Section 5 of Limitation Act; first appeal is an extension of trial; re-examine evidence; illhealth; lack of necessary funds; O.S.No.40 of 2018; Principal District Sessions Judge Pudukkottai; judgment and decree dated 09.11.2023; A.S.(MD)SR.No.29780 of 2025; C.M.P.(MD)No.14136 of 2025; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; C.V.Karthikeyan; R.Vijayakumar; Ramsait; Ramanathan; RMS.Sethuraman; R.Paranjothi; KBS Law Office.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 401-day delay in filing the appeal; Registry to number the consequential application and the appeal and list them before the Court. ¶32

Ramsait Vs Ramanathan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.P.(MD)No.14136 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)SR.No.29780 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.M.P.(MD)No.14136 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)SR.No.29780 of 2025

Ramsait

... Petitioner

-vs-

Ramanathan

... Respondent

PRAYER: Petition filed under Order Section 5 of Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 401 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.40 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, dated 09.11.2023.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.R.Paranjothi for M/s.KBS Law Office

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶16

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

¶17

C.M.P.(MD)No.14136 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)SR.No.29780 of 2025

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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

¶20

This application has been filed to condone the delay of 401 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.40 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, dated 09.11.2023.

¶21

2. The defendant is the appellant herein. In the affidavit,

¶22

stating the reasons for the delay, it had been stated that the appellant was suffering from illhealth and did not have necessary funds to prefer the appeal against the judgment and decree.

¶23

3. We had directed notice to the respondent/plaintiff. Notice

¶24

had been served and learned counsel has also entered appearance.

¶25

_____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶26

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

¶27

C.M.P.(MD)No.14136 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)SR.No.29780 of 2025

¶28

4. Taking note of all the factor into consideration, since the