V.Manikandan Vs Ambikavathy — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

V.Manikandan Vs Ambikavathy — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The trial Court's condonation order was not overturned; costs were enhanced from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.18,000/-, to be deposited by the respondent within four weeks; the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.13561 of 2026) was closed with no costs; and the trial Judge was directed to dispose of the suit within three months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court erred in allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of a delay of 1462 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order, notwithstanding the respondent/defendant's alleged wilful negligence.

Court's answer

This Court found no irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court allowing the condonation application.

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the conduct of the defendant, this Court enhanced the costs from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.18,000/-.

Key takeaways

The respondent was directed to deposit Rs.18,000/- towards costs within a period of four weeks.ratio¶5
With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition was disposed of; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no costs.ratio¶5
The learned trial Judge was further directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (T.V. Thamilselvi, J.), disposing of CRP No. 3123 of 2026 (with CMP.No.13561 of 2026), filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the 'Fair and Final Order' dated 12.11.2025 of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.1436 of 2017, whereby the trial Court had allowed the respondent/defendant's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act condoning a delay of 1462 days in filing her application to set aside the ex-parte order, on costs of Rs.7,000/-. The petitioner/plaintiff contended the defendant had filed a written statement, then deliberately stayed away, and sought condonation only after notice in execution (E.P. No.596 of 2023). Finding no irregularity in the trial Court's order, the Court, having regard to the defendant's conduct, enhanced the costs from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.18,000/-, directed their deposit within four weeks, closed the connected miscellaneous petition with no costs, and further directed the trial Judge to dispose of the money-recovery suit within three months.

CRP No. 3123 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-06-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

CRP No. 3123 of 2026 and

CMP.No.13561 of 2026

V.Manikandan S/o. Velusamy, D.No.11, 2nd Cut, 3rd Street, Ganapathipudur, Ganapathy, Coimbatore 641 006.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

Ambikavathy W/o. Janakiraman, D.No.51, 4th Street, Ganesh Layout, Ganapathy, Coimbatore 641 006.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, prays to set aside the Fair and Final Order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.1436 of 2017 dated 12.11.2025 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner(s): MR.P.R.Ramesh Babu

For Respondent(s):

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge

allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for

condonation of a delay of 1462 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-

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

CRP No. 3123 of 2026

parte order dated 12.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.1436 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, the petitioner / plaintiff has preferred the present revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent, having appeared through counsel and filed a written statement, deliberately remained absent thereafter. Consequently, the plaintiff obtained a decree and filed E.P. No.596 of 2023 for execution. Only after receipt of notice in the execution proceedings did the respondent come forward with an application to condone the delay. According to the petitioner, the delay was due to wilful negligence and, without considering the same, the trial Court erroneously allowed the application.

Considering the fact that the suit is one for recovery of money, and that

the respondent/defendant had already filed a written statement but failed to cooperate during the trial proceedings, the trial Court nevertheless granted one more opportunity and allowed the application on payment of costs of Rs.7,000/-.

This Court does not find any irregularity in the order passed by the trial

Court. However, having regard to the conduct of the defendant, this Court is

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

CRP No. 3123 of 2026

inclined to enhance the costs from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.18,000/-.

The respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards

costs within a period of four weeks. With the above direction, this Civil

Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

The learned trial Judge is further directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months.

05-06-2026

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

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

CRP No. 3123 of 2026

To

1.Ambikavathy W/o. Janakiraman, D.No.51, 4th Street, Ganesh Layout, Ganapathy, Coimbatore 641 006.

The I Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

The Section officer, VR sEction, High Court of Madras.

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

CRP No. 3123 of 2026

T.V.THAMILSELVI J. rri

CRP No. 3123 of 2026

05-06-2026

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