Allowed

R.Pushparani v. Dencil Kuthelan

Madras HC17 Apr 2026CMP(MD)/18966/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to condone a 256-day delay in filing a Second Appeal, citing ill health and the COVID-19 pandemic. The court found sufficient cause shown and that the delay was neither inordinate nor deliberate, allowed the petition and directed the Registry to number the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 256 days in filing Second Appeal condoned; Registry directed to number the appeal if otherwise in order and list it for admission.

R.Pushparani Vs Dencil Kuthelan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CMP(MD). No.18966 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 17/04/2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

CMP(MD). No.18966 of 2025 in SA(MD)SR.No.9890 of 2023

¶7

R.Pushparani 2. M.Vinibert Fernando ... Petitioners

¶8

¶9

Dencil Kuthelan 2. A.Karpagam Elizabeth ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER :-

¶11

To condone the delay of 256 days filing in the above Second Appeal and thus render justice.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Edin Brough For 1^st respondent : Mr. J. Roshini

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 256 days in

¶15

filing the above Second Appeal.

¶16

1/3

¶17

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

¶18

CMP(MD). No.18966 of 2025

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my

¶20

attention to paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of this petition, stating that the delay in filing the Second Appeal was neither willful nor wanton, but occurred only due to the ill health of the petitioners and also due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which had started in 2021. The learned counsel for the petitioners would therefore state that since the suit is one for declaration and substantial rights of the parties are involved, the petitioners may be permitted to prosecute the Second Appeal on merits.

¶21

Per contra, Ms. J. Roshini, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would state that the petitioners have not assigned satisfactory reasons and that the delay of 256 days has not been properly explained. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any indulgence from this Court.

¶22

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶23

2/3

¶24

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

¶25

CMP(MD). No.18966 of 2025

¶26

I am satisfied that the petitioners have shown sufficient cause

¶27

for not preferring the Second Appeal in time. Admittedly, in January 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic was at its peak, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also extended the period of limitation for filing appeals and other proceedings. In such circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to be heard on merits in the appeal and should not be non-suited on the ground of delay. Moreover, the delay is neither inordinate nor deliberate.

¶28

Accordingly, the CMP is ordered. Registry is directed to

¶29

number the Second Appeal, if it is otherwise in order, and list it for admission in the usual course. Further, the Registry is directed to print the name of the counsel for the first respondent in the cause list at the time of admission.

17.04.2026

trp

3/3

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

R.Pushparani v. Dencil Kuthelan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Pushparani v. Dencil Kuthelan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Mani Vs 1. v.Bangaru (Died) 2. S.Muthukaruppan

Thirumalaikannan Vs Bharathan alias Muthuraj

Periasamy(died) Vs Thangamudi

Ramasamy @ Ramaiah Vs P.Subbaiah (Died) 1.Piramuthu

Panneerselvam Vs Yuvaraj

M.Jacob, Vs N.D.Chandra Mohan David