Petitioner sought revision against refusal to condone an 81-day delay in representing a restoration application. The High Court found each day's delay was not explained with acceptable documentary evidence and dismissed the civil revision petition, confirming the trial court's order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP(MD). No.3283 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 19.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
CRP(MD). No.3283 of 2025
S.C.Thankeshwari ... Petitioner
Vs
1.C.Kumaresan 2.Kasthuri ... Respondents
PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.248 of 2018 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Eraniel.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar for M/s.Roy and Roy Associates
For Respondents : Mr.C.R.Nimal
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.248 of 2018 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Eraniel.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
1/4
CRP(MD). No.3283 of 2025
the delay of 81 days in representing the restoration I.A, which was returned on 03.11.2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The same was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner has not mentioned any reason for the said delay. Against which, this revision has been filed.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not explained each and every day delay with acceptable documentary proof. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of the petition.
5.Perusal of records shows that the petitioner has not explained each and every day delay with acceptable documentary evidence. Hence, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition.
6.Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
Speaking : Yes / No 19.02.2026 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No
TM
2/4
CRP(MD). No.3283 of 2025
To
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
3/4
CRP(MD). No.3283 of 2025
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
TM
CRP(MD). No.3283 of 2025
19.02.2026
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to condone a delay of 81 days in representing the restoration interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.C.Thankeshwari
C.Kumaresan
Kasthuri
N.Senthilkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
