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.

Rajalakshmi Vs Saraswathi — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2026
Rajalakshmi Vs SaraswathiRajalakshmi v. Saraswathi

Dismissed¶34

Rajalakshmi v. Saraswathi

Madras HC27 Apr 2026CMP/9173/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Division Bench refused to condone a 2036-day delay in filing an appeal against a specific-performance decree in OS No.66 of 2015. Key factors: after the decree, the judgment-debtor side actively contested execution proceedings EP No.53 of 2020 (ending in registration of sale deed on 21.09.2022) and EP No.76 of 2024 (delivery of possession ordered 30.01.2026), defeating any claim of ignorance of the decree; the pandemic excuse and allegation of counsel negligence were held insufficient and no diligence was shown; even excluding the pandemic period the delay remained about four years. Petition dismissed. Relevant for submissions on deliberate/negligent delay where a party litigated in execution after the impugned decree.

What did the court decide?

Since both EP Nos.53 of 2020 and 76 of 2024 were contested by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot disclaim knowledge of the decree and has not shown any diligence.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 2036 days in filing the appeal in AS SR No.8119/2025 against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 in OS No.66/2015 should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court is not inclined to condone the delay; the petition stands dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Since both EP Nos.53 of 2020 and 76 of 2024 were contested by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot disclaim knowledge of the decree and has not shown any diligence.

Key takeaways

The delay is nearly six years; even if concession is given for the pandemic, the delay is still four years, and the petitioner cannot disclaim ignorance of the decree in favour of the respondent.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - 2036 days' delay in filing appeal in AS SR No.8119 of 2025 against judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 in OS No.66 of 2015 (specific performance, Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai) - Suit decree fully executed during intervening period: sale deed registered 21.09.2022 in EP No.53 of 2020, and delivery of possession ordered 30.01.2026 in EP No.76 of 2024 - Petitioner had contested both execution proceedings and therefore could not disclaim knowledge of the decree - Plea of pandemic and counsel's default rejected; no diligence shown - Delay nearly six years; even conceding the pandemic period, delay still four years - Delay condonation declined; CMP dismissed (Division Bench of C.V.Karthikeyan and K.Rajasekar JJ.; order made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.).

A

CMP No. 9173 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

CMP No. 9173 of 2025 in AS SR No.8119 of 2025

Rajalakshmi

..Appellant(s)

Vs

P.Latchathipathi (Died)

Saraswathi

Chandrasekaran

Jagadeeshwari

4. Parvathiyammal

..Respondent(s)

To condone the delay of 2036 days in filing the appeal in AS SR No.8119/2025 against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 passed in OS No.66/2015 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Indrajith For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Jawahar

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 2036 days in filing

the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019, passed in OS No.66 of 2015, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

Page1 of 4

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

CMP No. 9173 of 2025

2.The said suit in OS No.66 of 2015 had been filed seeking specific performance and agreement of sale dated 21.10.2014 with respect to the suit schedule properties for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-.

3.It is contended that the respondents have paid an advance of Rs.25,00,000/-. Balance of Rs.5,00,000/- should be paid within a period of sixteen months from the date of the agreement. On receipt of balance sale consideration, the petitioner herein should execute the sale deed. Since there was failure to perform the agreement, the suit had been instituted for specific performance. By judgment dated 28.03.2019, the suit had been decreed. Thereafter, the decree holder/plaintiff had filed EP No.53 of 2020, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai, to put the decree in execution. The petitioner herein entered appearance. The draft sale deed was directed to be prepared and thereafter sale deed was also executed in the name of the plaintiff in the suit and was registered on 21.09.2022. On registration of the sale deed, EP No.53 of 2020 was terminated on 28.09.2022. The plaintiff died on 08.05.2023. The respondent herein thereafter stepped into the shoes of the plaintiff and filed EP No.76 of 2024 for delivery of possession. Delivery was also granted by an order dated 30.01.2026. It is to be noted that the petitioner had also contested the proceedings. At that stage, this petition had been filed to condone of 2036 days in filing the appeal.

__________ Page2 of 4

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

CMP No. 9173 of 2025

4.Notice had been directed and respondents have entered appearance. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was pandemic in the initial two years and thereafter counsel had not properly taken up the case. But however on the side of the respondents, it is contended that both EP Nos.53 of 2020 and 76 of 2024 were contested and only thereafter orders have been passed by the Execution Court. It is stated that the delay is deliberate and now the order for delivery had been passed on 30.01.2026.

5.We have considered the arguments advanced.

6.The reasons given for the delay are in respect of the pandemic period which was in the year 2022. Thereafter, it had been contended that the counsel did not inform the petitioner about the decree. But however, both EP Nos.53 of 2020 and 76 of 2024 were contested by the petitioner. Therefore, they cannot disclaim knowledge of the decree. The petitioner has therefore not shown any diligence. The delay is nearly about six years. Even if we are to give concession for pandemic, the delay is still four years and the petitioner cannot disclaim ignorance of the decree in favour of the respondent. We are not inclined to condone the delay. The petition stands dismissed.

(C.V.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 27-04-2026

sli

__________ Page3 of 4

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

CMP No. 9173 of 2025

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.

sli

To The Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

CMP No. 9173 of 2025 in AS SR No.8119 of 2025

27-04-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the delay of 2036 days in filing the appeal in AS SR No.8119/2025 against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 in OS No.66/2015 should be condoned.¶18
The court held
The Court is not inclined to condone the delay; the petition stands dismissed.ratio¶34
2.
Whether the explanation offered (pandemic in the initial two years and thereafter counsel not properly taking up the case) constitutes sufficient cause showing diligence by the petitioner.medium confidence¶32
The court held
Since both EP Nos.53 of 2020 and 76 of 2024 were contested by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot disclaim knowledge of the decree and has not shown any diligence.ratio¶34

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 in OS No.66/2015 (suit for specific performance) passed by the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, against which appeal in AS SR No.8119 of 2025 is sought to be filed with condonation of 2036 days' delay.¶18
Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai · 28.03.2019
Prior proceeding
Suit OS No.66 of 2015 was filed seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 21.10.2014 with respect to the suit schedule properties.¶27
Prior proceeding
The suit was decreed by judgment dated 28.03.2019.¶28
Prior proceeding
The decree holder/plaintiff filed EP No.53 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai, to put the decree in execution.¶28
Prior proceeding
Sale deed was executed in the name of the plaintiff and registered on 21.09.2022; on registration, EP No.53 of 2020 was terminated on 28.09.2022.¶28
Prior proceeding
The plaintiff died on 08.05.2023.¶28
Prior proceeding
The respondent stepped into the shoes of the plaintiff and filed EP No.76 of 2024 for delivery of possession; delivery was granted by order dated 30.01.2026; the petitioner contested the proceedings.¶28
Prior proceeding
In the present CMP, notice was directed and respondents entered appearance; petitioner pleaded pandemic and counsel's failure to take up the case; respondents contended both execution petitions were contested and the delay was deliberate.¶32

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Rajalakshmi¶9
Mr.S.Indrajith
respondent
P.Latchathipathi (Died)¶12
Mr.B.Jawahar
respondent
Saraswathi¶13
Mr.B.Jawahar
respondent
Chandrasekaran¶14
Mr.B.Jawahar
respondent
Jagadeeshwari¶15
Mr.B.Jawahar
respondent
Parvathiyammal¶16
Mr.B.Jawahar

Coram

AI extract

C.V. KARTHIKEYANauthor¶21
K.RAJASEKARmember¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 27 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 8 Apr 2025
Case no.: CMP/9173/2025
CNR: HCMA010119542025
Bench: C.v. Karthikeyan K.rajasekar
Disposal: 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 C.v. Karthikeyan K.rajasekar

N.Ranjini Vs Somu Jayachandran
24 Apr 2026
The Divisional Manager Vs Kavitha
24 Apr 2026
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Veerammal
24 Apr 2026
K. Ravikumar Vs K. Suguneeswari
27 Apr 2026
A.Veerapandian Vs N.Nithyanandam (Deceased) 1.C.Anandhi
27 Apr 2026
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs a.Murugesan
27 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

Rajalakshmi v. Saraswathi, CMP/9173/2025 (MAD), decided on 27 April 2026.

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

Procedural history8

Judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 in OS No.66/2015 (suit for specific performance) passed by the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, against which appeal in AS SR No.8119 of 2025 is sought to be filed with condonation of 2036 days' delay.Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai · 28.03.2019
Suit OS No.66 of 2015 was filed seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 21.10.2014 with respect to the suit schedule properties.
The suit was decreed by judgment dated 28.03.2019.

View full history

Bench / Coram

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN and K.RAJASEKAR

Parties & counsel