Allowed¶29

C.Raja v. K.Palani

Madras HC11 Feb 2026A/692/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 164 days; reply to counter claims; Original Side Rules Order V Rule 5; Order V Rules 5 and 3; CS No. 27 of 2024; A No. 692 of 2026; C. Raja; M/s Honest Builders; K. Palani; Senthil Kumar alias K. Senthil Raj; K. Sridevi; sickness and hospitalisation; no objection by counsel; multiplicity of proceedings; Madras High Court; P. Dhanabal J.; 11-02-2026.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 164-day delay in filing the reply to the counter claims of defendants 1 and 2 in C.S.No.27 of 2024, with the reply taken on record. ¶29

C.Raja Vs K.Palani — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A No. 692 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

A.No. 692 of 2026 in CS No. 27 OF 2024

¶7

C.Raja

¶8

Proprietor Of M/s Honest Builders, Having Office At No.13/17, Rear Building, 18th Avenue, Ashok Nagar,

Chennai 600 083.

..Applicant

K.Palani

¶13

Mr.Senthil Kumar alias K.Senthil Raj

¶14

Mrs.K.Sridevi

¶15

..Respondents

¶16

Application filed under Order V Rules 5 of the Original Side Rules read with Order V Rules 5 and 3 of the Original Side Rules to condone the delay of 164 days in filing the reply to the counter claims filed by Defendants 1 and 2 in C.S.No.27 of 2024.

¶17

__________ Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

A No. 692 of 2026

¶20

For Applicant: M/S.G Vijay Anand Associates for Ms.R.Aparna For Respondents: Mr.Thomas T.Jacob (R1 and R2) Mr.M.Jaikumar (R3)

¶21

Order

¶22

This application has been filed to condone the delay of 164 days in filing the reply to the counter claims filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in the C.S.No.27 of 2024.

¶23

According to the applicant, he is the plaintiff in the main suit. The respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 have filed their counter claims along with their written statement. Since the applicant was sick and hospitalized at the relevant point of time, he could not file his reply to the counter claim, within the time. Hence, he filed this application seeking to condone the delay of 164 days in filing the reply to the counter claims filed by the defendants 1 and 2.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the other side has raised no objection for allowing this application.

¶25

Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

A No. 692 of 2026

¶29

application and considering the no objection having been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the other side and also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, this Court feels it appropriate to allow this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the delay of 164 days in filing the reply to the counter claims filed by the defendants 1 and 2 is condoned. The reply filed by the applicant to the counter claims filed by the defendants 1 and 2 is taken on record.

¶30

11-02-2026 (1/2)

¶31

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

¶32

__________ Page3 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

A No. 692 of 2026

¶35

P.DHANABAL J.