logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 1268 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : C.R.P. No. 2154 of 2025 & C.M.P. No. 12651 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
Parties : K. Krishna Kumar Versus T. Subramaniyam (Died) & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: J. Dinesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Sai Shankaran, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 23-02-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

2. Catch Words:
- limitation
- condonation of delay
- decree
- stay
- costs
- revision
- appeal
- deposit condition

3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 challenging the dismissal order of the I Additional City Civil Court, which had conditioned the condonation of a 57‑day delay in filing the first appeal on the deposit of 50 % of the decretal amount of Rs.9,07,120. The petitioner argued that such a condition is onerous and contrary to established Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The respondents contended that the condition was justified as the petitioner had not contested the suit after filing the written statement. The Court observed that while a stay application might warrant security, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should not be burdened with a heavy deposit condition. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate order, allowed the revision petition, and imposed a modest cost of Rs.10,000 payable to the respondents’ counsel, while directing the petitioner to seek a separate stay if desired.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking to set aside the consequential dismissal order dated 21.02.2025 of the I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in A.S.SR No.10524 of 2024 and also thereby direct the respondent to pay the costs of this proceedings to the petitioner herein.)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed seeking to set aside the dismissal order dated 21.02.2025 of the I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in A.S.Sr No.10524 of 2024 and to direct the respondent to pay the costs of this proceedings to the petitioner herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the onerous condition directing the deposit of 50% of the decretal amount for condoning the delay of 57 days in filing the first appeal. After hearing the counsel on either side, I am able to understand that the petitioner has suffered a decree for money for Rs.9,07,120/- and challenging the same, the first appeal has been preferred, though with a delay of 57 days. The said application to condone the delay of 57 days in preferring the appeal has been allowed by the first appellate Court, on condition that the petitioner has to pay the decretal amount on or before 21.02.2025. Challenging this order, the petitioner / appellant is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order directing to deposit 50% is an onerous condition and the Court ought not to have imposed such a condition which is contrary to the settled principles enunciated by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters of this nature. He would therefore pray for the revision to be allowed.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents state that after filing the written statement, the petitioner did not even contest the suit and therefore, there is no defence. In the absence of any evidence being let in before the trial Court, he would state that there is no infirmity in the order of the appellate Court, directing deposit of 50% of the decretal amount.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. Admittedly, the first appellate Court was only deciding an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. I can understand if the application was one for stay of the decree passed by the trial Court, then the trial Court was certainly justified in putting the petitioner on terms including directing deposit of 50% of the decretal amount. However, in an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court ought not to have imposed such an onerous condition which has always been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by this Court.

8. In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed subject to the condition, the petitioner paying a costs of Rs.10,000/- to the counsel for the respondents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the compliance of the condition above, the delay shall be condoned and it is made clear that, if the petitioner intends to seek stay of the operation of the decree, he shall move an application for stay and the said stay application shall be independently decided on merits after hearing both parties. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal