Allowed¶7

K.Saraswathy and 2 others v. M.Raman and another

Madras HC7 Apr 2026A/6229/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 942 days; ex parte decree; set aside decree; C.S.No.656 of 2019; A.No.6229 of 2025; declaration of title; consequential injunction; immovable property; bona fide explanation; change of counsel; costs Rs.10,000/-; conditional condonation; Madras High Court; A.D. Maria Clete; 07.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 942 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 14.12.2021 condoned, on condition that the applicants pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondent/plaintiff within two weeks; Registry to number the set-aside application, if otherwise in order, and post it for consideration on 17.04.2026. ¶7

K.Saraswathy and 2 others Vs M.Raman and another — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 942 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 14.12.2021 passed in C.S.No.656 of 2019 should be condoned, and if so, on what terms.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

Though the delay of 942 days is considerable, the explanation offered by the applicants cannot be said to be wholly lacking in bona fides.

¶5

Key takeaways

In a matter concerning rights over immovable property, it is appropriate to afford the parties an opportunity to have the matter adjudicated on merits, subject to terms.ratio¶5
Since the plaintiff cannot be prejudiced by the applicants' delay, the Court held that the delay can be condoned on terms.ratio¶6
The application is allowed on condition that the applicants pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondent/plaintiff within two weeks; on such payment, the delay of 942 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 14.12.2021 shall stand condoned.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - Madras High Court (Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete, 07.04.2026) allowed A.No.6229 of 2025 in C.S.No.656 of 2019, condoning the 942-day delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 14.12.2021 in a suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction over immovable property. Though the delay was considerable, the applicants' explanation (entrustment to earlier counsel and mishandling of proceedings) was held not wholly lacking in bona fides; as rights over immovable property were involved, the parties were to be afforded adjudication on merits subject to terms. Condonation ordered on payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the plaintiff within two weeks; Registry directed to number the set-aside application, if otherwise in order, and list it on 17.04.2026.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.04.2026

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶5

A.No.6229 of 2025 in C.S.No.656 of 2019

¶6

1.K.Saraswathy 2.K.Naresh Kumar 3.K.Nandhini ...Applicants/2nd to 4^th Defendants

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.M.Raman ...1st Respondent/Plaintiff 2.R.Karupayi ...2nd Respondent/1st Defendant

¶9

For Applicant : M/s.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan For R1 : Mr.A.Swaminathan **********

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Heard.

¶12

This application has been filed by defendants 2 to 4 to condone the

¶13

delay of 942 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 14.12.2021 passed in C.S.No.656 of 2019.

¶14

Page No.1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

The suit is one for declaration of title and consequential injunction

¶17

in respect of immovable property. The applicants state that, on receipt of summons, they had entrusted the matter to an advocate, believing that necessary steps would be taken in the suit. the applicants had been pursuing the matter and that the delay is attributed to the manner in which the proceedings were handled on their behalf. It is their further case that thereafter they took steps to secure the papers and engage new counsel.

¶18

On the contrary, the respondent/plaintiff vehemently opposed the

¶19

allowing of the petition, relying on the judgments in K.S. Rajendhiran v. Dr. M.R. Muralikrishnan & Another , Mohd. Sahid & Others v. Raziya Khanam (D) through LRs. & Another , and Lakshmi (died) & Others v. T. Radhakrishnan & Others .

¶20

Though the delay is considerable, the explanation offered by the

¶21

applicants cannot be said to be wholly lacking in bona fides. In a matter concerning rights over immovable property, it would be appropriate to afford the parties an opportunity to have the matter adjudicated on merits, subject to terms.

¶22

Page No.2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

At the same time, the plaintiff cannot be prejudiced by the applicants’ delay. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the delay can be condoned on terms.

¶25

In the result, this application is allowed on condition that the

¶26

applicants pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondent/plaintiff within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment, the delay of 942 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 14.12.2021 shall stand condoned.

¶27