Charles v. Aasirvatham

Madras HC29 Jun 2026CMP(MD)/5566/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 676 days; second appeal; SA(MD)No.SR28587 of 2026; CMP(MD). No.5566 of 2026; Madurai Bench, Madras High Court; Thamilselvi J.; decree reversed in A.S.No.12 of 2021, Subordinate Court Sankarankovil; 2013 injunction suit decreed; plaintiff exparte at first appeal; COVID-19 period; lack of communication; remote village; valid defence; right and title; valuable right to defend; cost Rs.2,000/- to respondents' counsel; Registry to number appeal; admission listed 14.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 676 days in filing the second appeal condoned, on payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost to the learned counsel for the respondents within a week; on production of the payment receipt, the Registry to number the second appeal if the papers are otherwise in order and list it for admission on 14.07.2026. ¶27-28

Charles Vs Aasirvatham — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27-28

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 676 days in filing the second appeal (SA(MD)No.SR28587 of 2026) against the decree in A.S.No.12 of 2021 should be condoned.

¶11

Court's answer

An opportunity must be given to the plaintiff/petitioner to contest the first appeal, since he claims a valid defence and material documents to prove his right and title over the property; if the opportunity is not given, his valuable right to defend the case will be defeated.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's absence in the appeal is explained by the COVID-19 period, lack of communication, and his coming from a remote village.

¶26

Key takeaways

Considering all the facts, the Court is inclined to allow the condonation application, subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost to the respondents' counsel within a week.ratio¶27-28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay granted - CMP(MD). No.5566 of 2026 in SA(MD)No.SR28587 of 2026 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, T.V. Thamilselvi J., 29.06.2026): The Court condoned a 676-day delay in filing a second appeal against the decree in A.S.No.12 of 2021 (Subordinate Court, Sankarankovil), in which the first appellate court, with the plaintiff-petitioner absent and marked exparte, reversed the trial court's decree on his 2013 injunction suit claiming ownership of the property. Reasons accepted: the delay fell in the COVID-19 period coupled with lack of communication and the petitioner's residence in a remote village, and denial of an opportunity would defeat his valuable right to defend the case and prove his right and title. Condition: payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost to the respondents' counsel within a week; on receipt, the Registry to number the second appeal, if papers otherwise in order, and list it for admission on 14.07.2026.

¶1

CMP(MD). No.5566 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 29/06/2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CMP(MD). No.5566 of 2026 in

¶7

SA(MD)No.SR28587 of 2026

¶8

Charles ... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

Aasirvatham,

¶10

Samathana ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER :- To condone the delay of 676 days in filing the above Second Appeal and pass such further or other order as this Court. For Petitioner : M/s.S.Mahalakshmi,

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.T.Indrachithu,

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Petition is filed to condone the delay of 676 days in filing the

¶15

above Second Appeal.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that due to lack of communication, he was not able to follow the proceedings and it

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

CMP(MD). No.5566 of 2026

¶20

also falls under during the COVID-19 period. Therefore, he prayed to condone the delay of 676 day to prefer the second appeal. Further,the learned would also submit that in the first appeal, the decree was reversed, accordingly, the suit was dismissed. However, he is having valid defence to prove his right and title over the property. Therefore, prayed one more opportunity.

¶21

The learned counsel for the respondents raised objections stating that as a plaintiff, he bound to follow the proceedings and he wantonly remains absent and after nearly two years, he come forward with the present application, seeking to prefer the second appeal, without assigning any sufficient reason for the inordinate delay.

¶22

Considering the submissions, it reveals that in the year 2013, the petitioner has filed a suit praying for injunction in respect of the suit property, stating that he is the owner of the property and the defendants contested the suit. On hearing both sides, the suit was a decreed. Against which, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.12 of 2021 before the Subordinate Court, Sankarankovil, But, in the appeal proceedings,

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

CMP(MD). No.5566 of 2026

¶26

the petitioner /plaintiff was not appeared, he said exparte . However, the appeal also been allowed by reversing the trial Court finding. Therefore, an opportunity is to be given to the plaintiff to contest the appeal, since according to him, he is having valid defence as well as material documents to prove his right and title over the property. If opportunity not given his valuable right to defend the case will be defeated. Furthermore, it also reveals that the appeal was filed during the COVID-19 period, due to lack of communication, he was also not appeared since he is coming from remote village.

¶27

Considering all the facts, this Court is inclined to allow the

¶28

application on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the learned counsel for the respondents within a week from today. On production of receipt of such payment, the Registry is directed to number the second appeal, if the papers are otherwise in order and list the same for admission on 14.07.2026.

29.06.2026

3/4

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

¶33

CMP(MD). No.5566 of 2026

¶34

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

¶35