Allowed¶31

Rathigunam v. Vigneswaran

Madras HC19 Jun 2026CRP/2881/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; restoration of suit dismissed for default; 273 days' delay; sufficient cause - accident and hospitalization (January 2023); O.S. No.97 of 2010; I.A. No.1 of 2023; I.A. No.507 of 2017; C.M.A. No.32 of 2019; Principal Subordinate Judge, Ponneri; Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India; CRP No. 2881 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Madras; T.V. Thamilselvi J.; conditional condonation with Rs.1,000/- costs payable within two weeks; earlier restoration costs Rs.25,000/-; order dated 19-06-2026.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed: the 273-day delay in filing the restoration petition is condoned subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs to the respondent/defendant within two weeks; on such payment, I.A. No.1 of 2023 shall stand allowed and O.S. No.97 of 2010 shall stand restored. No costs.

Rathigunam Vs Vigneswaran — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 273 days in filing the petition to restore O.S. No.97 of 2010 (dismissed for default on 21.09.2022) ought to be condoned. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The petitioner was inclined to prosecute the matter: although the suit had earlier been dismissed for default, it stood restored pursuant to the order in C.M.A. No.32 of 2019 upon payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-, which she complied with.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Court did not sustain the Trial Court's adverse characterization: the petitioner's non-appearance was attributable to an accident and hospitalization in January 2023 and lack of proper communication with her counsel.

¶30

Key takeaways

Affording one more opportunity to the petitioner, the delay was condoned subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs to the respondent/defendant within two weeks.ratio¶30
On such payment of costs, the application shall stand allowed and the suit shall stand restored; there shall be no costs in the revision.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (T.V. Thamilselvi, J., 19-06-2026) allowed CRP No. 2881 of 2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.02.2025 of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ponneri in I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.97 of 2010, by which the plaintiff-petitioner's application to condone a 273-day delay in filing a petition to restore the suit (dismissed for default on 21.09.2022) was rejected on the view that she was not interested in prosecuting the matter. The Trial Court had relied on an earlier dismissal-for-default and restoration (order in I.A. No.507 of 2017, subject to costs); this Court noted the restoration pursuant to C.M.A. No.32 of 2019 upon payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-, which the petitioner complied with, showing her inclination to prosecute. Holding that her absence resulted from an accident and hospitalization in January 2023 with consequent lack of communication with counsel, the Court condoned the delay, affording one more opportunity subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs to the respondent/defendant within two weeks; on such payment the application stands allowed and the suit restored. No costs on the revision.

¶1

CRP No. 2881 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRP No. 2881 of 2025

¶7

Rathigunam W/o. Vivekananthan, Sundankottai Post, Sattankulam Taluk, Tuticorin Dt.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Vigneswaran S/o. Muniyandi, No.27, Ramakrishna main Road, Kavankarai, Chennai 066.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to allow this Civil Revision Petition and set aside the Fair and Decretal Orders dated 25.02.2025 made in IA No.1 of 2023 in OS No.97 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ponneri.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): MR.M.Ramesh For Respondent(s): MS.NAASUHAH SHAJID. AP FOR M/S.KAAVYA SILAMBANAN ASSOCIATES

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The plaintiff has preferred this Civil Revision Petition challenging the

¶17

impugned order dated 25.02.2025 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.97 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ponneri.

¶18

Before the Trial Court, the petitioner filed an application to condone

¶19

Page1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

CRP No. 2881 of 2025

¶22

the delay of 273 days in filing a petition to restore the suit, which had been dismissed for default on 21.09.2022. Upon hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application holding that, on an earlier occasion, the suit had

¶23

been dismissed for default and was restored as per the order passed in I.A. No.507 of 2017, subject to payment of costs. Even after restoration, the petitioner did not cooperate with the proceedings and, therefore, the suit was again dismissed for default. Holding that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the matter, the Trial Court dismissed the application and declined to condone the delay. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had met with an accident and, therefore, she was unable to contact her counsel and was not properly informed about the hearing, due to which she could not appear before the Court.

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondent raised objections contending

¶26

that the petitioner intended only to drag on the proceedings and was not interested in proceeding with the suit. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner is aged about 68 years and the suit is of the year 2010. It is also seen that, though the suit had earlier been dismissed for default, the same was restored pursuant to the order passed in C.M.A. No.32 of 2019, upon payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-, she complied that which shows that the petitioner was

¶27

Page2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

CRP No. 2881 of 2025

¶30

inclined to prosecute the matter. However, since she met with an accident and was hospitalized in the month of January, 2023, she was unable to contact her counsel and there was also lack of proper communication. Therefore, this Court is inclined to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner and condone the delay, subject to payment of a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs to the

¶31

respondent/defendant within a period of two weeks. On such payment, the application shall stand allowed and the suit shall stand restored. No costs.

¶32

19-06-2026

¶33

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶34

MPA

¶35

¶36