Muthukrishnan v. M.Dharanikumar

Madras HC10 Mar 2026CRL MP/2072/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay - 107 days - Criminal Revision Petition - Section 5 of Limitation Act - C.C.No.137 of 2017 dated 16.05.2025 - Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam - respondent unrepresented despite notice - Madras High Court - CRL MP No. 2072 of 2026 - petition allowed, delay condoned.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the delay of 107 days in filing the Criminal Revision Case against the impugned order in C.C.No.137 of 2017 dated 16.05.2025. ¶25-26

Muthukrishnan Vs M.Dharanikumar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL MP No. 2072 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

CRL MP No. 2072 of 2026 in Crl. RC SR No.1054 of 2026

¶7

Muthukrishnan S/o Elumalai, No.69, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Konerikuppam Village, Tindivanam Taluk.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

M.Dharanikumar S/o Muthukrishnan, V.K.S.Pandiyan Nagar, Cheran Street, Eraiyanur Panchayat, Tindivanam, Villupuram.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER: This Criminal Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying to Condone the delay of 107 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Petition against the impugned order in C.C.No.137 of 2017 dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr. C.Samivel

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to condone

¶16

the delay of 107 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Petition against the impugned order in C.C.No.137 of 2017 dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Learned

¶17

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam.

¶18

Page1 of 3

¶19

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

¶20

CRL MP No. 2072 of 2026

¶21

Notice served on the respondent and his name is also printed in the

¶22

cause list. In spite of printing the name of the respondent, no one is appeared.

¶23

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner and upon perusing the affidavit filed in support of this petition, this Court is of the view that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay.

¶25