Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

S. Vijayakumar Vs S. Dhanalakshmi — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2026
S. Vijayakumar Vs S. DhanalakshmiS. Vijayakumar v. S. Dhanalakshmi

Dismissed¶21

S. Vijayakumar v. S. Dhanalakshmi

Madras HC3 Feb 2026CMP/723/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Madras High Court order dismissing a civil miscellaneous petition for condonation of delay in filing a fresh civil revision petition (CRP SR No.5103 of 2026). Key elements: affidavit of undertaking previously filed and recorded in CRP No.5426 of 2025 obliging petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession by 31.01.2026; petitioner's non-compliance; erstwhile counsel Mr.J.E.R.Lenin (tenant's counsel in the earlier CRP) confirming he advised adherence to the undertaking and played no part in the fresh filing; counsel Ms.R.Ashwini seeking leave to withdraw; Court refusing condonation, dismissing the CMP, and permitting the respondent to recover possession through court process. Useful search terms: condonation of delay, revision petition, affidavit of undertaking, vacate premises, vacant possession, tenant, breach of undertaking, Puducherry, Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; respondent declared at liberty to take possession through court process. ¶21

Why is it important?

In the light of the clarification obtained from Mr.J.E.R.Lenin regarding the earlier affidavit of undertaking in CRP No.5426 of 2025, the Court was not inclined to entertain CMP No.723 of 2026 for condonation of delay in filing a fresh revision petition, and dismissed the CMP. ¶21

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; respondent declared at liberty to take possession through court process.

Issue for consideration

Whether CMP No.723 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay in filing a fresh revision petition ought to be entertained, in view of the petitioner's earlier affidavit of undertaking in CRP No.5426 of 2025 to vacate on or before 31.01.2026. +1 more

Court's answer

In the light of the clarification obtained from Mr.J.E.R.Lenin regarding the earlier affidavit of undertaking in CRP No.5426 of 2025, the Court was not inclined to entertain CMP No.723 of 2026 for condonation of delay in filing a fresh revision petition, and dismissed the CMP.

Ratio / Principle

As the petitioner failed to adhere to the undertaking affidavit by vacating and handing over vacant possession on or before 31.01.2026, the respondent was declared at liberty to take possession through court process.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.B. Balaji, J.) — CMP No. 723 of 2026 in CRP SR No.5103 of 2026 — dismissed on 12-02-2026. The miscellaneous petition sought condonation of delay in filing a fresh revision petition. The petitioner, however, stood bound by an affidavit of undertaking filed and recorded before the Court in CRP No.5426 of 2025, granting time to vacate and hand over possession on or before 31.01.2026, which deadline passed unfulfilled. In compliance with the Court's order dated 03.02.2026, Mr.J.E.R.Lenin — counsel for the tenant who had appeared in CRP No.5426 of 2025 — appeared and confirmed he had advised the petitioner to abide by the undertaking and had neither been consulted nor involved in the delayed fresh filing. The petitioner's counsel (Ms.R.Ashwini), on being apprised of the earlier undertaking, sought permission to withdraw the CMP. The Court declined to entertain the petition, dismissed CMP No.723 of 2026, and made it clear that, the petitioner having breached the undertaking, the respondent is at liberty to take possession through court process. No statute or precedent was cited.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-02-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CMP No. 723 of 2026 in CRP SR No.5103 of 2026

S. Vijayakumar S/o. M. Sivanandane, Saram Revenue Village, RS No.182/5 Ground Floor, ECR Main Raod, Laws pet, Puducherry - 605 Petitioner 008.

Vs

S. Dhanalakshmi

No.187, Buvankare Street, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry - 605 004. 2.E. Vinothkumar Saram Revenue Village, Rs.No.182/5 Ground Floor, ECR Main Road, Lawspet, Puducherry - 605 008.

Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Ashwini For Respondent(s): M/s.E.V.Chandru

ORDER

In pursuance of the order dated 03.02.2026, learned counsel Mr.J.E.R.Lenin

has appeared and has fairly stated that he has already advised the petitioner that the petitioner has to abide by the affidavit of undertaking that has been filed before this Court in CRP No.5426 of 2025.

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

P.B.BALAJI.,J

sr

This Court has already recorded the said affidavit of undertaking and

granted time to the petitioner to vacate on or before 31.01.2026. Learned counsel for the tenant who appeared in CRP No.5426 of 2025 Mr.J.E.R.Lenin has affirmed the factum of the filing of the affidavit of undertaking and that he has not been consulted or involved in the process of filing the present revision petition, that too with delay.

Learned counsel for the miscellaneous petitioner, after being brought to the notice about the earlier undertaking affidavit, has sought permission to withdraw CMP No.723 of 2026.

In the light of the above, a clarification obtained from Mr.J.E.R.Lenin, I am not inclined to entertain CMP No.723 of 2026 for condonation of delay in filing a fresh revision petition. CMP No.723 of 2026 is dismissed. It is made clear that as the petitioner has not adhered to the undertaking affidavit by vacating and handing over vacant possession on or before 31.01.2026, the respondent is at liberty to take possession through court process.

12.02.2026

sr

CMP No. 723 of 2026 in CRP SR No.5103 of 2026

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether CMP No.723 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay in filing a fresh revision petition ought to be entertained, in view of the petitioner's earlier affidavit of undertaking in CRP No.5426 of 2025 to vacate on or before 31.01.2026.¶21
The court held
In the light of the clarification obtained from Mr.J.E.R.Lenin regarding the earlier affidavit of undertaking in CRP No.5426 of 2025, the Court was not inclined to entertain CMP No.723 of 2026 for condonation of delay in filing a fresh revision petition, and dismissed the CMP.ratio¶21
2.
What recourse is available to the respondent following the petitioner's failure to vacate and hand over vacant possession by 31.01.2026 as undertaken in the affidavit recorded in CRP No.5426 of 2025.medium confidence¶21
The court held
As the petitioner failed to adhere to the undertaking affidavit by vacating and handing over vacant possession on or before 31.01.2026, the respondent was declared at liberty to take possession through court process.ratio¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
An affidavit of undertaking had been filed before this Court in CRP No.5426 of 2025, which the petitioner was required to abide by.¶14
Prior proceeding
The Court recorded the affidavit of undertaking and granted the petitioner time to vacate on or before 31.01.2026.¶19
Prior proceeding
By order dated 03.02.2026 the Court required learned counsel Mr.J.E.R.Lenin to appear.¶13
Prior proceeding
A fresh revision petition (CRP SR No.5103 of 2026) was filed with delay, and Mr.J.E.R.Lenin affirmed he had not been consulted or involved in its filing; CMP No.723 of 2026 was moved for condonation of that delay.¶19
Prior proceeding
After being apprised of the earlier undertaking affidavit, the miscellaneous petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw CMP No.723 of 2026.¶20

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
S. Vijayakumar S/o. M. Sivanandane¶6
Ms.R.Ashwini, Mr.J.E.R.Lenin
respondent
S. Dhanalakshmi¶8
M/s.E.V.Chandru
respondent
E. Vinothkumar¶9
M/s.E.V.Chandru

Coram

AI extract

P.B. Balajiauthor¶4

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 3 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 8 Jan 2026
Case no.: CMP/723/2026
CNR: HCMA010082452026
Bench: P.b. Balaji
Disposal: WITHDRAWN DISMISSED
Case type: CMP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from P.b. Balaji

Kandhasamy Vs Kandhasamy
2 Feb 2026
Arukkani Ammal (Died) S.Saraswathi, Vs Anbukkarasi
2 Feb 2026
Gurusamy Vs Rani
2 Feb 2026
M. Afser Shakir Vs K. Shanmugavel
3 Feb 2026
Parvathy Vs K.Ashok Chakravarthy
3 Feb 2026
S.Sornalatha Vs Bhanumathi
3 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

S. Vijayakumar v. S. Dhanalakshmi, CMP/723/2026 (MAD), decided on 3 February 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history5

An affidavit of undertaking had been filed before this Court in CRP No.5426 of 2025, which the petitioner was required to abide by.
The Court recorded the affidavit of undertaking and granted the petitioner time to vacate on or before 31.01.2026.

View full history

Bench / Coram

P.B. Balaji

Parties & counsel