Dismissed¶27

D.Radha v. M.Anjalai

Madras HC29 Jun 2026CMP/11726/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

D.Radha (petitioner; counsel D. Jayasekar 'For Appellant') v. M.Anjalai (respondent; counsel P. Jeyaprakasam), C.M.P.No.11726 of 2026 in A.S.No.552 of 2021, High Court of Judicature at Madras, decided 29.06.2026 by Justice R. Kalaimathi. Keywords: condonation of delay; 447 days; Section 5 Limitation Act; restoration of First Appeal; appeal dismissed as infructuous; petition not maintainable; no petition will lie against dismissal order; final decree in O.S.No.660 of 2017; XVII Additional Judge and XII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai; no order as to costs. Outcome: CMP dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No petition will lie against the order dated 02.12.2024 dismissing the Appeal as infructuous; consequently the Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking condonation of delay is dismissed as not maintainable in law, with no order as to costs.

D.Radha Vs M.Anjalai — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.06.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

¶5

C.M.P.No.11726 of 2026 in A.S.No.552 of 2021

D.Radha

..Petitioner

M.Anjalai

..Respondent

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 447 days in filing the petition for restoration of First Appeal and thus render justice.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.D.Jayasekar For Respondent : Mr.P.Jeyaprakasam.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶15

By an order dated 02.12.2024, this Court dismissed the Appeal as

¶16

infructuous. The details of the judgment dated 02.12.2024 are extracted

¶17

hereunder:-

¶18

“Appeal Suit is filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2019 in O.S.No.660 of 2017 on the file of the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶19

__________ Page1 of 2

¶20

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

¶21

R.KALAIMATHI, J.

¶22

kmm

¶23

2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent appeared through

¶24

virtual mode and submitted that final decree had been passed in O.S.No.660 of 2017 on the file of the learned XII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 17.03.2023.

¶25

3. In the light of the submission made by the learned Counsel

¶26

for the Respondent, the Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Against the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay in filing the petition. No petition will lie against the said order and therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed as not maintainable in law. There is no order as to costs.

¶28

29.06.2026

¶29

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

¶30

C.M.P.No.11726 of 2026

¶31

in A.S.No.552 of 2021

¶32

__________ Page2 of 2

¶33

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