Allowed¶22

P.Govindan (Died) v. M.R.Muthaiya

Madras HC16 Mar 2026CMP(MD)/6871/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; 905 days delay; CMP(MD).No.6871 of 2019; CRP(MD).SR.No.21664 of 2019; P.Govindan (died); M.Amutha legal representative daughter; M.R.Muthaiya; death of petitioner as sufficient cause; opposition by M/s.Shiva Shree / Mr.J.Barathan; III Additional District Munsif Tiruchirapalli; I.A.No.338 of 2015; O.S.No.422 of 2011; fair and decreetal order 02.09.2016; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; V.Lakshminarayanan J.; 16.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 905 days in preferring the Civil Revision Petition condoned; Registry directed to carry out necessary amendment to the cause title, number the Civil Revision Case and list it for admission, printing Mr.J.Barathan and M/s.Shivashree as counsel for the respondent. ¶22

P.Govindan (Died) Vs M.R.Muthaiya — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause exists to condone the delay of 905 days in preferring the Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 02.09.2016 of the III Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli in I.A.No.338 of 2015 in O.S.No.422 of 2011.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Since the second Revision Petitioner (daughter of the deceased first Revision Petitioner) is already on record as legal representative, there is no necessity to file a separate petition to bring on record the other legal representatives, as the estate is substantially represented.

¶18

Key takeaways

The death of the first revision petitioner, which left the second revision petitioner (a lady with no other relatives) unable to attend to the proceedings, constitutes sufficient cause for the delay, despite the strong opposition of M/s.Shivashree.ratio¶20
The delay of 905 days in preferring the Civil Revision Petition is condoned.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (V.Lakshminarayanan, J.), 16.03.2026 - CMP(MD).No.6871 of 2019 in CRP(MD).SR.No.21664 of 2019: Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of 905 days' delay in preferring a Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decreetal order dated 02.09.2016 of the III Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli in I.A.No.338 of 2015 in O.S.No.422 of 2011. Court held that the death of the first revision petitioner P.Govindan left the second petitioner M.Amutha, his daughter and legal representative already on record, unable to pursue the proceedings; since she was a lady with no other relatives to take care of the proceedings, sufficient cause existed despite strong opposition of M/s.Shivashree. No separate petition to bring other legal representatives on record was required as the estate is substantially represented. The 905-day delay was condoned and the Registry directed to amend the records, number the Civil Revision Case and list it for admission.

¶1

CMP(MD).No.6871 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.03.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

CMP(MD).No.6871 of 2019 and CRP(MD).SR.No.21664 of 2019

1.P.Govindan (Died)

2.M.Amutha

...Petitioners

Vs.

M.R.Muthaiya ...Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to pass an order to condone the delay of 905 days in preferring the above Civil Revision Petition before this Honourable Court as against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the learned III Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli in I.A.No.338 of 2015 in O.S.No.422 of 2011 by the petitioners forthwith.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Sankara Pandian For Respondent : M/s.Shiva Shree for Mr.J.Barathan

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

CMP(MD).No.6871 of 2019

¶17

ORDER

¶18

It is represented that, the first Civil Revision Petitioner Mr.P.Govindan, is no more and the 2^nd Revision Petitioner, Mrs.M.Amutha is the daughter of the first Revision Petitioner. As the legal representative is already on record, there is no necessity for filing a separate petition to bring on record the other legal representatives, as the estate is substantially represented.

¶19

The same is recorded. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment.

¶20

The reason for filing the revision with delay is the fact that, on account of the death of the first revision petitioner, the second revision petitioner was entirely at sea and as she is a lady with no other relatives, to take care of the proceedings. This Court find sufficient cause, despite the strong opposition of M/s.Shivashree.

¶21