Dismissed¶31

The Managing Director v. v. Vijayan

Madras HC24 Jun 2026CMP/13330/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; second appeal limitation; Section 12(2) Limitation Act — exclusion of date of pronouncement, copy-application date and copy-ready date; India House v Kishan N Lalwani (2003) 9 SCC 393 relied on; appeal filed on 90th day, last day of limitation; CMP dismissed as unnecessary; Registry directed to number appeal; Order XLI Rule 3(A) CPC; Madras High Court; S. Sounthar J.; CMWSSB appellants; first appellate decree dated 17.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

CMP dismissed as unnecessary (no delay exists); Registry directed to number the second appeal if it is otherwise in order. ¶31

The Managing Director Vs v. Vijayan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

CMP dismissed as unnecessary (no delay exists); Registry directed to number the second appeal if it is otherwise in order.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether there was a delay of 3 days in filing the second appeal requiring condonation under Order XLI Rule 3(A) CPC. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

With the three days (date of pronouncement of judgment, date of copy application, date on which certified copies were made ready) excluded, the second appeal was filed on the 90th day, the last day of limitation; therefore there is no delay in filing the second appeal.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act requires that the date on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, and the time required for obtaining the copy of the order appealed from, be excluded while computing the time for filing an appeal.

¶23

Key takeaways

Following the ruling in India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani (2003) 9 SCC 393, the date on which the copy application was made and the date on which the certified copies were made ready are also excluded in calculating limitation for the appeal, apart from the date on which the judgment was pronounced.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Limitation for second appeal — exclusion of copy-application and delivery dates. CMP under Order XLI Rule 3(A) CPC by CMWSSB officials seeking condonation of a Registry-computed 3-day delay in filing SA.Sr.No.117988 of 2025 against the first appellate court's judgment and decree dated 17.04.2025. Held, applying Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act and relying on India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani (2003) 9 SCC 393: the date of pronouncement of the judgment, the date of the copy application and the date on which the certified copies were made ready are all excluded in computing limitation; with these three days excluded, the appeal filed on 25.07.2025 fell on the 90th day — the last day of limitation — so there was no delay. CMP dismissed as unnecessary; Registry directed to number the second appeal if otherwise in order. (S. Sounthar J., Madras HC, 24-06-2026.)

¶1

CMP No. 13330 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CMP No. 13330 of 2026 in SA.Sr.No.117988 of 2025

¶7

The Managing Director Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board,

¶8

No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai 2

¶9

The Senior Accounts Officer-4 Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Zone 4, No.10-C, Cental; Avenue Road, M.K.B.Nagar,Vyasarpadi, Chennai 39

¶10

The Assistant Engineer Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Division-41, C Street, Korukkupet,Chennai 21

¶11

..Appellant(s)

¶12

¶13

V. Vijayan 2. V.Vijaya Chitra 3. V.Saravanan 4. V.Thulasi

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

__________ Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

CMP No. 13330 of 2026

¶18

Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Order XLI Rule 3(A) of CPCP, praying to condone the delay of 3 days in filing the above said Second Appeal.

¶19

For petitioners(s): M/s.S.Deepika

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of 3 days in filing the above second appeal.

¶22

It is seen from the typed set of papers that judgment and decree of the first appellate court was passed on 17.04.2025. The copy application was made on 24.06.2025 and the copies were made ready on 01.07.2025. The second appeal was filed on 25.07.2025.

¶23

Registry came to the conclusion that there was a delay of 3 days by including the date of pronouncement of judgment, date of filing of copy application and the date on which the copies were made ready while calculating the limitation. However, Section 12(2) of Limitation Act makes it clear that date on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time required for obtaining copy of the order appealed from shall be excluded while computing the time for filing appeal.

¶24

The expression “time required for obtaining copy of the order” came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of India House Vs Kishan N.Lalwani reported in (2003) 9 SCC 393. The relevant observation reads as follows:-

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

CMP No. 13330 of 2026

¶28

“ Although the language of sub-section (2) of Section 12 is couched in a form mandating the time requisite for obtaining the copy being excluded from computing the period of limitation, the easier way of expressing the rule and applying it in practice is to find out the period of limitation prescribed and then add to it the time requisite for obtaining the copy- the date of application for copy, and the date of delivery, thereof both included-and treat the result of addition as the period of limitation”.

¶29

Therefore, it is clear that date on which the copy application was made

¶30

and the date on which the certified copies were made ready shall be excluded while calculating limitation for appeal apart from the date on which judgment was pronounced. If these three days are excluded while calculating limitation, the present appeal has been filed on 90^th day (last day of limitation). Therefore, there is no delay in filing the above second appeal.

¶31

In view of the same, CMP.No.13330 of 2026 is dismissed as unnecessary and the Registry is directed to number the second appeal if it is otherwise in order.

¶32

24-06-2026

¶33

Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes nr

¶34

__________ Page3 of 4

¶35

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

¶36

CMP No. 13330 of 2026

¶37

S.SOUNTHAR, J.