Disposed¶26

C.S.Ramesh v. P.K. Vaduvammal

Madras HC7 Jan 2026CRP/4271/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay in filing written statement; conditional allowance of condonation application subject to payment of cost (Rs. 2000/-); dismissal for non-compliance with conditional order; Section 148 CPC petition for extension of time permissible even after expiry of fixed time; Full Bench authority Gowri Ammal v. Murugan, 2006 (3) CTC 418 relied upon; Commercial Court, Egmore Chennai; COS No.290 of 2024; IA.No.2 of 2025; CRP under Article 227; remedy of fresh extension application rather than setting aside dismissal; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of with a direction that the petitioner is permitted to file an application for extension of time to comply with the condition, to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP.No.21913 of 2025) closed.

C.S.Ramesh Vs P.K. Vaduvammal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's dismissal of IA.No.2 of 2025 (condonation of 90-day delay in filing written statement) for the petitioner's failure to comply with the conditional payment order can be found fault with in revision under Article 227. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Since the petitioner failed to comply with the condition imposed (payment of Rs. 2000/- on or before 14-07-2025), the trial court had no option but to dismiss the condonation-of-delay application, and the Revisional Court cannot find fault with the impugned order.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Following the Full Bench ruling in Gowri Ammal Vs Murugan (2006 (3) CTC 418) that a petition for extension of time can be filed under Section 148 of CPC even after expiry of the time fixed by the Court for performance of an act, the petitioner is permitted to file an application for extension of time to comply with the condition; if filed, it shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar J.) disposed of a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the docket order dated 15.07.2025 of the Principal Commercial Court, Egmore Chennai, dismissing IA.No.2 of 2025 in COS No.290 of 2024 - the defendant's application to condone a 90-day delay in filing the written statement - for failure to comply with the conditional order directing payment of Rs. 2000/- to the plaintiff on or before 14-07-2025. Holding that the trial court had no other option once the condition went unmet, the Court refused to find fault with the dismissal. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Gowri Ammal Vs Murugan, 2006 (3) CTC 418, that a petition for extension of time may lie under Section 148 of CPC even after expiry of the time fixed for performance, the Court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application for extension of time, to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. No costs; the connected CMP.No.21913 of 2025 was closed.

¶1

CRP No. 4271 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP No. 4271 of 2025 and CMP.No.21913 of 2025

¶7

Mr.C.S.Ramesh Proprietor of M/s.CS Rao Infra Projects, Flat B, Virdi Residency, 57, Thangam Colony, H Block, 30^th Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 040.

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

¶10

M/s.P.K. Vaduvammal A Registered Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.D.M. Suresh, No.1 Blackers Road, Gaiety palace, Unit -4A, 4th Floor, Anna Salai, Chinthadripet, Chennai - 002.

¶11

Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the docket order passed in IA No.2 of 2025 in COS No.290 of 2024 on the file of Principal Commercial Court, Egmore Chennai Docket order dated 15.07.2025.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ram Pranav.M.N.R for M/s.S.Veeraraghavan

¶14

For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Maghizhnan for M/s.P.S.Deepika

¶15

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

¶16

CRP No. 4271 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner in IA.No.2 of 2025 seeking to condone the delay of 90 days in filing written statement.

¶19

It is seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of IA.No.2 of 2025, the suit summons were served on the petitioner/defendant on 31-122024. He filed written statement along with the petition to condone the delay of 90 days in filing written statement on 29-04-2025. Having satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioner, the trial court allowed the said application on 02-07-2025 subject to the condition to the petitioner to make a payment of Rs. 2000/- to the respondent/ plaintiff on or before 14-07-2025. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions within a time stipulated on the next date on 15-07-2025, IA.No.2 of 2025 was dismissed for failure of the petitioner to comply with the conditional order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed application seeking extension of time for payment of the cost amount on 28.07.2025 and the same has not been considered by the trial court. The application said to have been filed by the petitioner is included in the typed set of papers at Page Nos. 43 to 47. However, the petitioner has not given SR

¶21

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

¶22

CRP No. 4271 of 2025

¶23

number of the petition filed by him seeking extension of time.

¶24

Since the petitioner failed to comply with the condition, the trial court dismissed the application. When the petitioner failed to comply with the condition, the trial court has no other option but to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the order impugned in this revision. However, it is open to the petitioner to file an application seeking extension of time for complying with the condition in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Gowri Ammal Vs Murugan and Others reported in 2006 (3) CTC 418, wherein it was held that the petition for extension of time could be filed under Section 148 of CPC, even after expiry of time fixed for performance of an act by the Court.

¶25

Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to file application for extension of time. If any such application is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with the law.

¶26