Allowed¶27

The Municipal Commissioner, v. K.Jeyalakshmi

Condonation of delay – Section 5 of Limitation Act

Madras HC19 Feb 2026CMP(MD)/13511/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 769 days; Section 5 Limitation Act; C.M.P.(MD) No.13511 of 2023; W.A.(MD) SR No.25095 of 2019; Municipal Commissioner Usilampatti Municipality; K.Jeyalakshmi; Director of Municipality Administration Chennai; cost Rs.5,000/-; S.L.P. pending Supreme Court; stay of impugned order; learned Single Judge order challenged; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; Dr.G.Jayachandran; K.K.Ramakrishnan; 19.02.2026; Registry to number writ appeal.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 769-day delay in filing W.A.(MD) SR No.25095 of 2019, on payment of Rs.5,000/- cost to the first respondent within four weeks from 19.02.2026; Registry to number the writ appeal on proof of payment and post it for admission in the usual course. ¶27

The Municipal Commissioner, Vs K.Jeyalakshmi — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.P.(MD) No.13511 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

C.M.P.(MD) No.13511 of 2023 and

¶7

W.A.(MD) SR No.25095 of 2019

¶8

The Municipal Commissioner Usilampatti Municipality Usilampatti Madurai District.

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.K.Jeyalakshmi

2.The Director of Municipality Administration Chennai.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 769 days in filing the above writ appeal.

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

C.M.P.(MD) No.13511 of 2023

¶18

For	Petitioner	: Mr.A.Kannan
For	R1	: Mr.S.Ramesh @ Ramiah
For	R2	: Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
		Additional Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶21

This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 769 days in filing the above writ appeal.

¶22

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant states that in the connected matter, S.L.P. has been filed and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the operation of the impugned order of the High Court has also been stayed and only thereafter, the Corporation has taken a decision to prefer the appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. He pleads that for the sake of consistency and uniformity in the judicial pronouncement, the delay needs to be condoned.

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

C.M.P.(MD) No.13511 of 2023

¶26

3. Mr.S.Ramesh @ Ramiah, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.DS.R.A.Ramachandran, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the second respondent have objected the condonation of delay since the petition is bereft of details.

¶27

4. Taking the rival contentions, we are of the view that the delay of 769 days to be condoned on cost. Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay is allowed on cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the first respondent within four weeks from today (19.02.2026).

¶28

5. On receipt of proof of payment of cost, Registry is directed to number the writ appeal, if the papers are otherwise in order and post the same for admission in the usual course.

¶29

[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.] 19.02.2026

¶30

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶31

apd

¶32

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶33

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

¶34

C.M.P.(MD) No.13511 of 2023