The Court dismisses a Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking condonation of an 847-day delay in filing a Writ Appeal. Relying on a prior Division Bench judgment and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court finds the explanation insufficient and the appeal rejected.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; Writ Appeal rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CMP.No.21405 of 2025 in WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CMP.No.21405 of 2025 and WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023
Petitioner-CMP/ Appellant-WA.SR
Vs
Respondents-CMP/ Respondents-WA.SR
1/10
CMP.No.21405 of 2025 in WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023
Prayer:- This CMP.No.21405 of 2025 is filed, under Order IV Rule 9(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Appellate Side, 1965, to condone the delay of 847 days in representing the WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023.
Prayer:- This WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023 is filed, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1862, against the order of the Writ Court, dated 23.01.2023, passed in WP.No.7457 of 2021.
For Petitioner/Appellant : Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondent(s) : Mr.A.Selvendran, SGP-RR1 and 3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Shamim Ahmed, J.)
2/10
CMP.No.21405 of 2025 in WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023
promoted as an Assistant Professor, Stage I in the year 2009. By a letter dated 15.05.2008, he was permitted to do Ph.D degree in the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi for the period from 20092012. Extension of time was granted from 21.07.2012 to 31.12.2012 to him to complete the said Degree. However, he was not able to complete his Ph.D within the said period and he rejoined duty.
(b)The study period from 22.07.2009 to 20.07.2012 was excluded and
he was not considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor Stage III and Stage IV. The salary that was paid to the Petitioner during the study period was ordered to be recovered. The representation of the Petitioner was also rejected. Hence, the Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in WP.No.7457 of 2021, which was dismissed by the order of the Writ Court, dated 23.01.2023. As against the same, the Petitioner had preferred WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023, on 20.03.2023, which was returned by the Registry on 24.03.2023, granting 10 days time for certain compliance. Thereafter, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 847 days, in representing the above WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023.
3/10
CMP.No.21405 of 2025 in WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023
Petitioner and Mr.A.Selvendran, the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 and 3.
4/10
CMP.No.21405 of 2025 in WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023
with a prayer for condoning the delay of 847 days in representing the above Writ Appeal.
5/10
CMP.No.21405 of 2025 in WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023
present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is a time-barred one and cannot be sustained on the ground of laches.
12.The expression “sufficient cause“ and satisfactory explanation has been held to receive a liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice and generally, a delay in preferring a petition may be condoned in the interest of justice, where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, reported in 1987(2) SCC 107 , the Honourable Supreme Court said that when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
13.In similar issue, facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court, in WA.SR.Nos.105450 and 106444 of 2024 and CMP.Nos.17783 and 17784 of 2024, by the judgement, dated, 21.01.2026, relying on various judgements and orders of the Honourable Supreme Court, was pleased to observe as under:-
6/10
CMP.No.21405 of 2025 in WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023
“ 26. After taking into consideration the averments made in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioners/appellants , this Court is not satisfied that the Petitioners/appellants have explained the delay properly in filing the present Writ Appeals.
27. In our view, the kind of explanation rendered herein does not satisfy the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court that if delay has occurred for reasons, which does not smack of mala fide, the Court should be reluctant to refuse condonation. On the contrary, We find that here is a case, which shows complete careless and reckless long delay on the part of the Petitioners/appellants, which has remain virtually unexplained at all. Therefore, We do not find any reason to exercise our judicial discretion exercising judiciously so as to justify the condonation of delay in the present case.
28. In view of the above, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
29. In the result, in the light of the said observations and discussions made above and in the light of the decisions referred to above, these Civil Miscellaneous Petitions filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 972 days in filing the Writ Appeals is baseless and the same is hereby dismissed.
30. In view of the dismissal of Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, the Writ Appeals are dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. There shall be no order as to cost.”
7/10
CMP.No.21405 of 2025 in WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023
Miscellaneous Petition, seeking to condone the delay of 847 days in representing the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, the above Writ Appeal in WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023 is rejected. There is no order as to costs.
(R.S.K.J.) & (S.S.A.J.) 10.02.2026
Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Neutral Citation Srcm
8/10
CMP.No.21405 of 2025 in WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023
To
9/10
CMP.No.21405 of 2025 in WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023
R.SURESH KUMAR, J. and SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Srcm
CMP.No.21405 of 2025 and WA.SR.No.38456 of 2023
10.02.2026
10/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of 847 days in filing a Writ Appeal can be condoned under Order IV Rule 9(4) of the High Court Rules.
Whether the explanation of preparing translated copies constitutes a sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. KatijiFollowed¶56
Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, 1987(2) SCC 107 · Who else cites this
WA.SR.Nos.105450 and 106444 of 2024 and CMP.Nos.17783 and 17784 of 2024Followed¶66
WA.SR.Nos.105450 and 106444 of 2024 and CMP.Nos.17783 and 17784 of 2024
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G. Balasivasankar
State of Tamil Natural Resources
R. Suresh Kumar
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
