C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 11.12.2025

Pronounced on : 05.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in

S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by

The District Collector,

Thoothukudi District. : Petitioner/Appellant

Vs.

Jothi Lakshmi : Respondent/Respondent

PRAYER in C.M.P(MD)No.2862 of 2025: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed

under Order XLI, Rule 3(A) of C.P.C., to condone the delay of 4863 days in

filing the second appeal against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.15

of 2007, dated 18.06.2008 on the file of the Additional District Court,

Thoothukudi, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.9 of 2005

on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti.

PRAYER in S.A (MD) SR No. 9518 of 2025 : Second Appeal filed under

Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree, dated 18.06.2008 in

1/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

A.S.No.15 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track

Court No.II, Thoothukudi reversing the judgment and decree, dated

10.01.2006 in O.S.No.9 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ajmal Khan,

Additional Advocate General,

for Mr.D.Gandhiraj,

Special Government Pleader.

For Respondent : Mr.J.Barathan.

ORDER

The above application has been filed under Order XLI, Rule 3(A) of

C.P.C., to condone the delay of 4863 days in filing the second appeal,

challenging the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.15 of 2007, dated

18.06.2008 on the file of the Additional District Court, Thoothukudi, reversing

the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.9 of 2005, dated 10.01.2006 on the

file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti.

2.The respondent as plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2005,

claiming the reliefs to declare that the suit properties are belonging to the

plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendant

and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

3.The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement and contested

the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti, after framing necessary

issues and after full trial, passed the judgment, dated 10.01.2006, dismissing

the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in

A.S.No.15 of 2007 and the learned Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi,

upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the

arguments of both the sides, passed the judgment and decree, dated

18.06.2008, allowing the appeal and thereby setting aside the judgment and

decree of the trial Court and granted the reliefs of declaration and permanent

injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. Challenging the judgment and decree

of the first appellate Court, the defendant, who is the Government of Tamil

Nadu represented by the District Collector, Thoothukudi, filed the present

second appeal along with the above application to condone the delay of 4863

days in filing the second appeal.

4. The case of the petitioner canvassed in the delay condonation

petition is that after the disposal of the first appeal, the respondent/plaintiff

3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

had initiated various proceedings before the Revenue authorities for grant of

patta; that the respondent has also filed number of writ petitions, seeking

directions to consider her representations claiming patta for the suit property

and that since the officials of the petitioner/defendant were grappling with

number proceedings before various authorities, they could not prefer the

second appeal within the stipulated time.

5.It is their further case that the property in question was used for

conducting sports events by the members of Adi-Dravidar Community and this

situation has escalated in sensitivity, placing the Revenue Authorities in a

precarious position due to potential for conflict; that the Adi-Dravidar

community has a history of organizing numerous sports events at the said

location, thereby establishing a pattern that may complicate property rights

and claims; that the officials have been compelled to invest considerable time

and resources into identifying a viable solution that addresses the competing

interests while mitigating the risk of law and order issues and this necessity for

intervention reflects the broader implications of property disputes in

community contexts, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of the

4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

facts and circumstances surrounding the claims; that there is a delay of 4863

days in filing the second appeal and the said delay is neither wilful nor wanton

and due to the above said administrative reasons, Covid-19 and other natural

calamity, namely, flood in Thoothukudi and that the petitioner will be put to

irreparable loss and untold hardship, if the delay is not condoned.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the property in dispute

has been classified as 'Village Natham' or 'Sarkar Poramboke', which is

typically reserved for communal purposes; that the respondent/plaintiff, taking

advantage of the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, is

taking coercive steps against the officials, but the officials are facing the wrath

of village people claiming right over the same property for conducting sports

events and that therefore, it is just and necessary to condone the delay of 4863

days in preferring the appeal.

7.The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit raising objections

and further stated that the above application is filed to condone an inordinate

and grossly unexplained delay of 6050 days (more than 16 years) in preferring

5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

the second appeal and the same is wholly unsustainable and an abuse of

process of law; that the petitioner failed to provide any sufficient and bona

fide reasons for the extraordinary delay; that the petitioner's vague and general

excuses, such as administrative reasons, Covid-19 pandemic and natural

calamities lack any specificity or substantiation with proper records; that the

petitioner being a Government authority is expected to act diligently and

responsibly in legal matters, but the present petition reflects gross negligence,

deliberate inaction and complete lack of diligence for which, no justifiable

cause has been shown; that the petitioner has claimed that multiple

proceedings were initiated by her for patta and other reliefs, which clearly

shows that the petitioner was well aware of the respondent's claim all along

and despite such knowledge, the petitioner has not chosen to file second

appeal within the prescribed period and remained completely passive; that the

petitioner has deliberately suppressed the fact that the writ petition in

WP(MD)No.27872 of 2024 was filed against him, challenging his actions

concerning the subject property and the said writ petition came up for hearing

on 21.11.2024 and 07.01.2025 and this Court was pleased to grant a stay in

respondent's favour and immediately, after the writ petition was taken up and

6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

interim stay was granted, the petitioner has rushed to file the second appeal

along with the above delay condonation petition and the same clearly indicates

that the petitioner has approached this Court only as a counter blast to the

adverse proceedings in the writ petition.

8. It is the further defence of the respondent that the Covid-19

pandemic excuses is wholly untenable as the pandemic occurred on

15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, whereas the delay in filing the second appeal

started in 2008 itself; that the excuse of natural calamities in Thoothukudi is

equally baseless, as there is no specific evidence provided as to how any flood

or calamity prevented the filing of the appeal for more than a decade before

the pandemic even occurred; that though the petitioner claimed that the suit

property is sarkar poramboke land (Government land) and village natham,

they have failed to take any steps to establish their claim in Court for 16 years

and even the allegation that the suit property is a Sarkar Poramboke land and

Village Natham are contradictory to each other ; that the petitioner's reliance

on classification of land (such as 'Sarkar Poramboke' or Village Natham') is

irrelevant as the plaintiff had acquired valid title through sale deeds from legal

7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

heirs and the first appellate Court had already adjudicated the issue in her

favour; that the petitioner failed to show that any substantial question of law

that would justify entertaining a second appeal after such a long delay; that the

petitioner has been enjoying the property lawfully since acquiring it through

registered sale deeds in the year 2004 and the first appellate Court has already

upheld her title in the year 2008 and that therefore, the second appeal as well

as the delay condonation petition are not maintainable and are liable to be

dismissed.

9. The only point for consideration is whether the delay of 4863

days in filing the second appeal, challenging the judgment and decree made in

A.S.No.15 of 2007, dated 18.06.2008 on the file of the Additional District

Court, Thoothukudi, is liable to be condoned.?

10. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer the decision in

the case of Shankargir Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another passed in

Civil Appeal No.14613 of 2025, dated 05.12.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court expressed dismay over the manner in which the High Court condoned

8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

the delay of 1612 days on the mere asking of the State Government. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court reminded that the law is well-settled in terms

limitation and condoning delay that sufficient cause has to be looked into.

11. In the case of Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran and another

reported in 2025 Live Law SC 560, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the

legal position that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the

first and foremost duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the

explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with

the merits of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for

the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally

balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may consider the merits of the

main matter for the purpose of condoning the delay and the relevant portion is

extracted hereunder :

“Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasised in

several cases that delay should not be condoned merely as an act

of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at

the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the present

9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

case, the respondents/defendants have failed to demonstrate

reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this

crucial requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet.”

12. The learned counsel for the respondent would rely on the

decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.

Ramkumar Choudhary reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3612, wherein its

earlier decision in Union of India Vs. Jahangir Byramiji Jeejeebhoy(D)

through his legal heir, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 489, was referred

and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder :

5.1. In Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)

through his legal heir, wherein, one of us (J.B.Pardiwala, J) was a

member, after referring to various decisions on the issue, it was in

unequivocal terms observed by this Court that delay should not be

excused as a matter of generosity and rendering substantial justice

is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The relevant passage

of the same is profitably extracted below:

“24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very

10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as

long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made

out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay.

25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party

or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross

delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the

court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant

provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no

prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being

condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in

1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till

date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his

decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of

12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to

undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings.

26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the

court must take into consideration while considering whether the

delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of

11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of

limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has

prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has

lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his

own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate

delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to

plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against

the technical considerations. While considering the plea for

condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the

main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides

of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is

only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the

opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may

bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning

the delay.

27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is

not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are

based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of

12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over

the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be

determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.

xxx xxx xxx

34. In view of the aforesaid, we have reached to the

conclusion that the High Court committed no error much less any

error of law in passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, the

High Court was exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been

said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity.

Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the

opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that they were

reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for

condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case.

36. For all the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is

hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

After referring to the above said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed,

'Applying the above legal proposition to the facts of the

present case, we are of the opinion that the High Court correctly

refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal by

observing that such inordinate delay was not explained

satisfactorily, no sufficient cause was shown for the same, and no

plausible reason was put forth by the State. Therefore, we are

inclined to reject this petition at the threshold.'

6. At the same time, we cannot simply brush aside the

delay occurred in preferring the second appeal, due to callous

and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the officials functioning

in the State machinery. Though the Government adopts

systematic approach in handling the legal issues and preferring

the petitions/applications/appeals well within the time, due to the

fault on the part of the officials in merely communicating the

information on time, huge revenue loss will be caused to the

Government exchequer. The present case is one such case,

wherein, enormous delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring

14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

the second appeal due to the lapses on the part of the officials

functioning under the State, though valuable Government lands

were involved. Therefore, we direct the State to streamline the

machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing

of cases before the Tribunal / Courts, etc., fix the responsibility on

the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who is/are

responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of

the loss caused to the Government. Such direction will have to be

followed by all the States scrupulously.

13. Bearing the above position in mind, let us consider the case on hand.

As already pointed out, the reasons canvassed for the delay are Covid-19 and

other natural calamity ie., flood in Thoothukudi apart from administrative

reasons.

14.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent,

Covid-19 impacted the limitation period only between March 2020 and

February 2022. But in the case on hand, the first appellate Court disposed of

the appeal on 18.06.2008 ie., 12 years before the Covid-19 pandemic.

Regarding the flood in Thoothukudi, the petitioner has not elaborated anything

further.

15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

15. Now turning to the administrative reasons, according to the

petitioner, the respondent after, dismissal of the first appeal, initiated various

proceedings before the Revenue Authorities for grant of patta and also filed

number of writ petitions, seeking directions to consider the petitioner's

representation claiming patta for the suit property and that since the officials

of the petitioner were grappling with the above proceedings, they could not

prefer the appeal within the stipulated time.

16.Though it has been averred that various proceedings were initiated

before the Revenue Authorities and number of writ petitions were filed before

the High Court, the petitioner has not chosen to mention the same. The learned

counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent filed a writ

petition in W.P(MD)No.27872 of 2024 against the petitioner challenging his

actions concerning the subject property and the said writ petition was taken up

for hearing on 21.11.2024 and 07.01.2025 and the High Court has granted stay

in favour of the respondent and only thereafter, the petitioner has filed the

present appeal along with the delay condonation petition as a counter blast to

the writ proceedings.

16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

17. Admittedly, the petitioner has nowhere whispered about the writ

petition in WP(MD)No.27872 of 2024, filed by the respondent and granting of

stay by this Court. Even assuming for argument sake that the respondent

initiated various revenue proceedings and filed several writ petitions, that by

itself is not a ground or reason for not filing the second appeal.

18. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

petitioner would submit that the suit property has been classified as Sarkar

Poramboke or Village Natham indicating that it is a Government owned and

designated for public or community use. He would further submit that since

the land in dispute is the Government land, the same cannot be allowed to be

grabbed by the respondent and that is why the petitioner has preferred the

present appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate

Court, which are erroneous factually and legally.

19. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the

petitioner/Government had taken some pleas before the first appellate Court,

17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

but the same came to be rejected; that the Government failed to take any steps

to establish their claim for 16 years, that the very allegation of the Government

that the suit properties are Sarkar Proramboke or Village Natham are

contradictory to each other and that the Government reliance on classification

of land as Sarkar Proramboke or Village Natham is totally irrelevant as the

respondent had acquired valid title through sale, which came to be accepted by

the first appellate Court.

20. As per settled legal position referred above, the Courts while

considering the plea of condonation of delay must not start with merits of the

matter, but can consider the merits for the purpose of condoning the delay only

if the sufficient cause given by the litigant and the opposition of the other side

is equally balanced or stand on equal footing.

21. As already pointed out, the reasons canvassed, by no stretch of

imagination can be taken as sufficient cause or reason and moreover, the

reasons canvassed were also not proved. It is settled law that administrative

reason cannot be taken as a sufficient cause so as to attract Section 5 of

18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

Limitation Act or Order 41 Rule 3A of C.P.C. No doubt, though the

respondent has alleged that there occurred delay of 6050 days, the Registry

has calculated the delay at 4863 days. The petitioner has sought to condone

the delay of more than 13 years in filing the second appeal.

22. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel for

the respondent would submit that the respondent is in possession and

enjoyment of the suit property. The learned Additional Advocate General, on

instructions, would admit the same. Moreover, the second appeal is not an

automatic right and it is a discretionary appeal granted by the Constitution

requiring the High Court's satisfaction that the case involves a substantial

question of law. It is not just a matter of facts; the core requirement is a

substantial question of law as defined in Section 100 C.P.C. Hence, the

contention of the petitioner that they should be given an opportunity to

prosecute the second appeal cannot be countenanced.

23. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that

the petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of

19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

4863 days in filing the second appeal and as such, this Court concludes that

the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

24. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, the Second Appeal is rejected at the SR stage itself.

05.01.2026

NCC : Yes /No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No

das

To

1.The Additional District Court, Thoothukudi.

2.The Sub Court, Kovilpatti.

2.The Record Keeper,

Vernacular Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

das

Pre-delivery order made in

C.M.P.(MD)No.2862 of 2025

in

S.A(MD)No.SR 9518 of 2025

Dated: 05.01.2026

21/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis