Allowed¶33

Muthulakshmi v. Chellaiah

Madras HC23 Mar 2026CMP(MD)/19354/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 495 days delay; Second Appeal S.A.(MD).SR.No.73578 of 2025; CMP(MD) No.19354 of 2025; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; P.B. Balaji J.; sufficient cause affidavit paragraph No.10; medical records not filed; conditional costs Rs.3,000/- to respondent's counsel; compliance reporting dated 30.03.2026; parties from Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 495 days in filing the Second Appeal in S.A.(MD).SR.No.73578 of 2025 condoned, subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- to the learned Counsel for the respondent within one week; matter posted to 30.03.2026 for reporting compliance. ¶33

Muthulakshmi Vs Chellaiah — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP(MD) NO. 19354 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23-03-2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶5

CMP(MD) NO. 19354 of 2025

¶6

¶7

SA(MD) SR NO. 73578 OF 2025

¶8

Muthulakshmi W/o.Chinnan Aged About 39 Ward No.15 Nethaji Nagar Usilampatti Town Usilampatti Taluk Madurai District.

¶9

CHINNAN S/o.Iyer Thevar Aged about 62 Othapatti Village Usilampatti Taluk Madurai District.

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

Chellaiah S/o.Rasu Thevar Aged about 56 Ward No.14 Chinna Poosari Street Keelaputhur Usilampatti Taluk Madurai District.

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner(s): M/s.Roy And Roy Associates Mr.S.Rajasekar

¶16

For Respondent(s):

M/s. S. Prabhu

S.Bala Murugan

K.Anbu Chelvam

For Sole Respondent Sr. 6003 Dt 12.02.2026

¶21

Prayer:

¶22

To condone the delay of 495 days in filing the above Second Appeal in S.A. (MD).SR.No.73578 of 2025 and thus render justice.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The delay of 495 days in preferring the Second Appeal is sought to be condoned.

¶25

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶26

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, taking me through the affidavit

¶27

filed in support of the condone delay application by the second petitioner would reiterate the reasons assigned in paragraph No.10 of the affidavit.

¶28

4. The learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the application on

¶29

the ground that the reasons for delay as set out in paragraph No.10 have not been substantiated by filing any medical records.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

5. Independently, going through the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of this application, I am satisfied that the delay has been reasonably explained by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application. However, at the same time, the prejudice caused to the respondent has to be necessarily compensated.

¶33

6. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed on payment

¶34

of Rs.3,000/- to the learned Counsel for the respondent within a period of one [1] week.

¶35

7. Post on 30.03.2026, “ for reporting compliance”.

¶36

23-03-2026

¶37

¶38

To 1. Chellaiah S/o.Rasu Thevar Aged about 56 Ward No.14 Chinna Poosari Street Keelaputhur Usilampatti Taluk Madurai District.

¶39