Hon’ble Mr. Justice. P.B. BALAJI on 07.11.2025 allowed the CRP (NPD) No. 1652/2023 filed against the order dismissing the petition to condone the delay of 240 days delay in setting aside after

[11/11, 17:58] Sekarreporter: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1988222338429800520?t=B2iM6fxgQgGR-8dCjO17fA&s=08
[11/11, 17:58] Sekarreporter: [11/11, 17:57] Sekarreporter:  

Hon’ble Mr. Justice. P.B. BALAJI on 07.11.2025 allowed the CRP (NPD) No. 1652/2023 filed against the order dismissing the petition to condone the delay of 240 days delay in setting aside after hearing the Counsel for petitioner G. Govarthanan  and exparte decree by following Joe Micheal Praveen Vs. Apsara Reddy and another in O.S.A.323 of 2025, order dated 07.10.2025, where Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court held that if it is found that conduct of the party is not totally indifferent, resulting in the exparte decree and the counsel had failed to appear and protect the interest of the applicant who suffered the decree, then an opportunity ought to be given to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits. The party should not suffer when the reasons are found to be bonafide and satisfactory, then the Court is entitled to look into the merits of the claim and taken a decision with regard to condonation of delay.

Also observed that the case stresses on protecting the substantial rights of parties if sufficient reasons for delay are provided and ensuring justice over procedural technicalities.

In essence, the judgment emphasizes that courts must exercise discretion liberally in condoning delay when reasons are genuine, especially in matters involving rightful possession and registered sale deeds, and should not allow procedural delays to unfairly prejudice parties’ substantial rights.
[11/11, 17:57] Sekarreporter: 👍👍