Allowed¶36

Meenakshi Ammal (Died) 2.Sundaram, v. Arokiasamy Udayar(Died) 2.Chinnappan

Madras HC2 Jul 2026CMP(MD)/20516/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), decision dated 02.07.2026, G.R.Swaminathan, J. - C.M.P(MD)No.20516 of 2025 in S.A(MD)No.1979 of 1999: delay of 2428 days in filing the application to set aside the 27.03.2019 dismissal-for-default of the 1999 second appeal was condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act despite opposition from the fifth respondent; Registry directed to list the restoration petition on 10.07.2026. Keywords: condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; dismissed for default; restoration petition; second appeal.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 2428-day delay in filing the application to set aside the order dated 27.03.2019 dismissing S.A(MD)No.1979 of 1999 for default; Registry directed to list the restoration petition on 10.07.2026. ¶36

Meenakshi Ammal (Died) 2.Sundaram, Vs Arokiasamy Udayar(Died) 2.Chinnappan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.P(MD)No.20516 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN C.M.P(MD)No.20516 of 2025

¶6

¶7

S.A(MD)No.1979 of 1999

¶8

1.Meenakshi Ammal (Died)

2.Sundaram

3.Karnan

4.Ravi

5.Dhanapal ... Petitioners 2-5 / Appellants 2-5

¶13

¶14

1.Arokiasamy Udayar (Died)

¶15

2.Chinnappan

¶16

3.Jesu Mary

¶17

4.Siluvai Mary

¶18

5.Sahaya Mary ... Respondents / Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2428 days in filing the application to set aside the order dated 27.03.2019 passed by this Court in the above S.A.No.1979 of 1999.

¶20

1/4

¶21

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

¶22

C.M.P(MD)No.20516 of 2025

¶23

For Petitioner(s):

¶24

Mr.R.Subramanian

¶25

For Respondent(s):

¶26

Mr.A.Mohamed Haneff for R.5

¶27

R.1, R.3 & R.4 - Died

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This second appeal was dismissed for default on 27.03.2019. Seeking restoration, this petition has been filed. But there was a huge delay in filing the restoration petition. To condone the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been taken out.

¶30

2.During the pendency of these proceedings, the respondents 1, 3 and 4 have passed away. The learned counsel who originally appeared for second respondent had also returned the papers. When fresh notice was taken to the second respondent, it was returned with the endorsement “No such person”.

¶31

3.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and contended that the delay is huge and therefore no indulgence ought to be shown.

¶32

2/4

¶33

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

¶34

C.M.P(MD)No.20516 of 2025

¶35

4.Be that as it may, the fifth respondent is now the only contesting

¶36

respondent. She is represented by counsel. The second appeal itself is of the year 1999. I am satisfied with the reasons set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Delay stands condoned.

¶37