P.Sivaraj v. C.Jayaraman

Madras HC25 Jul 2025CRP/670/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, 25.07.2025; V.Lakshminarayanan, J.; C.R.P.(NPD).No.670 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.3427 of 2022; P.Sivaraj v. C.Jayaraman; Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure; Order XLI Rule 3A(1); condonation of delay; 459 days delay; medical grounds; spinal cord injury; Native Doctor certificate Kasaragod; specific performance decree O.S.No.144 of 2008, I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem; R.E.P.No.275 of 2020; Principal District Court Salem; conditional condonation; Rs.10,000 costs; four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed: delay of 459 days in filing the appeal condoned on condition that the defendant pays the plaintiff Rs.10,000/- within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the revision stands dismissed without further notice; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

P.Sivaraj Vs C.Jayaraman — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 459 days in the defendant presenting the first appeal against the decree in O.S.No.144 of 2008 should be condoned on the ground of his medical incapacity (spinal cord injury and treatment in Kerala).

¶¶27

Court's answer

Medical reason is a ground to get the delay condoned; the certificate shows the defendant was in continuous treatment for close to 1½ years (10.08.2018 to 09.01.2020).

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

Requiring the sick defendant to summon the issuing doctor from Kasaragod District to Salem to prove his illness puts a high order on him; when sickness prevents a litigant from giving instructions to his lawyer, the First Appellate Court need not call upon him to give instructions over e-mail to his relatives for filing the appeal.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

Since the medical certificate was not found to be fraudulent or made ready for the purpose of the case, the court accepted it, while taking the interests of the plaintiff into consideration by directing the defendant to pay heavy costs.ratio¶¶39
The delay of 459 days in filing the appeal is condoned on the condition that the defendant pays the plaintiff Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶¶41
If the defendant fails to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated time, the Civil Revision Petition would stand dismissed without further notice to the Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 29.04.2021 of the Principal District Judge, Salem in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in Unnumbered AS.Sr.No.3459 of 2020, dismissing the defendant-applicant's prayer to condone a delay of 459 days in presenting an appeal against a decree for specific performance in O.S.No.144 of 2008 (decree dated 24.10.2008). The applicant relied on a Native Doctor's certificate dated 09.03.2021 showing continuous treatment for spinal cord/back-neck pain from 10.08.2018 to 09.01.2020. Held: (i) medical reason is a ground to condone delay; (ii) expecting the applicant to summon the doctor from Kasaragod District to Salem, or to insist on e-mailed instructions to relatives when sickness prevented instructions to the lawyer, placed a high order on the applicant; (iii) the certificate being neither fraudulent nor manufactured, it was accepted, with the plaintiff's interests protected by heavy costs. Delay of 459 days condoned subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff within four weeks of receipt of the order, failing which the revision would stand dismissed without further notice. Revision allowed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD).No.670 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD).No.670 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.3427 of 2022

P.Sivaraj

.. Petitioner

Vs.

C.Jayaraman .. Respondent

¶11

Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying to quash the order dated 29.04.2021 made in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in Unnumbered AS.Sr.No.3459 of 2020, on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem.

¶12

For Petitioner : Ms.J.Pooja for Mr.D.Baskar For Respondent : Mr.T.S.Vijayaraghavan

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This civil revision petition arises against the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, dated 29.04.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in Unnumbered AS.Sr.No.3459 of 2020.

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

C.R.P.(NPD).No.670 of 2022

¶18

2.Heard Ms.J.Pooja for the petitioner and Mr.T.S.Vijayaraghavan for

¶19

the respondent.

¶20

3.The parties shall be referred to as per their rank in the suit.

¶21

4.The defendant is the civil revision petitioner and the plaintiff is the respondent.

¶22

5.The plaintiff presented O.S.No.144 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge at Salem, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 16.02.2004. The suit came to be decreed as prayed for on 24.10.2008. On the strength of the decree, the plaintiff presented R.E.P.No.275 of 2020, seeking execution of the sale deed in terms of the decree. Subsequently, the defendant presented a regular appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, as against the decree. By the time the appeal came to be presented, it was out of time. Hence, the defendant filed an application to condone the delay of 459 days in presenting the appeal.

¶23

6.The ground on which the defendant sought the invocation of order

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P.(NPD).No.670 of 2022

¶27

XLI Rule 3A(1) of the Civil Procedure Code was that, he was suffering from a spinal cord injury and on account of that fact, he had to take treatment in Kerala. He produced a medical certificate dated 09.03.2021, from the Adi Dravida Tribel Ethno Medicine Research Centre, Kappalli, Malakkallu P.O., Rajapuram Via, Kasaragod District. In terms of the medical certificate, the Native Doctor has certified that the defendant was undergoing treatment from 10.08.2018 to 09.01.2020. Pleading medical reasons, the defendant sought the delay to be condoned.

¶28

7.The learned Principal District Judge received this application as I.A.No.1 of 2020 and ordered notice. The plaintiff filed a detailed counter pointing out that the defendant had not even appeared before the Trial Court to let in evidence and that, it was only after the suit had been decreed, he had come forward to file an application. The plea was that the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings and to harass him by taking note of filing of the execution petition in R.E.P.No.275 of 2020.

¶29

8.Before the learned Principal District Judge, the defendant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the aforesaid medical certificate as Ex.P1.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

C.R.P.(NPD).No.670 of 2022

¶33

9.The learned Principal District Judge took note of the fact that the appeal came to be presented only after the service of the execution petition and that he had filed the application only to drag on the proceedings. The learned District Judge also found fault with the defendant for not giving instructions to his relatives to file an appeal in time. Consequently, he dismissed the application. Hence, the revision.

¶34

10.The certificate issued by the Native Doctor shows that the defendant was in continuous treatment for “Spinal Card Pain and Back Neck Pain”. The treatment has been close to a period of 1 & ½ years from 10.08.2018 to 09.01.2020. Medical reason is a ground to get the delay condoned. To expect the defendant to summon the Doctor, who issued the certificate from Kasaragod District to come over to Salem, to depose as regards the medical illness of the defendant, is putting a high order on the defendant to discharge. The decree is one for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Vital rights relating to immovable property are involved. When a person pleads that on account of sickness, he was not in a position to give instructions to his lawyer to file an appeal, the learned First Appellate Court need not have called upon him to give instructions over e-mail to his relatives for filing an

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

C.R.P.(NPD).No.670 of 2022

¶38

appeal. When the certificate has not been found to be a fraudulent one made

¶39

ready for the purpose of the case, I am inclined to accept the same. Yet, the interests of the plaintiff will also have to be taken into consideration. The defendant will have to pay heavy costs to the plaintiff.

¶40

11.Accordingly, the delay of 459 days in filing the appeal is condoned

¶41

on the condition that the defendant pays the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the defendant does not pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated time, the Civil Revision Petition would stand dismissed without further notice to this Court.

¶42

12.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in the above terms. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶43

25.07.2025

¶44

krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

C.R.P.(NPD).No.670 of 2022