Balakrishnan v. Vimala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.03.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE C.M.A.Nos.999 of 2024 & 4802 of 2019 Balakrishnan .. Petitioner in both CMPs Vs. Vimala .. Respondent in both CMPs Prayer in C.M.P.No.4838 of 2025: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 41 days in filing the petition to restore to file the C.M.A.No.999 of 2024, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.12.2024; and Prayer in C.M.P.No.4842 of 2025: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 41 days in filing the petition to restore to file the C.M.A.No.4802 of 2019, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.12.2024. For the Petitioner in both CMPs : Mr.Suyesh Palande For the Respondent in both CMPs : Mr.R.Muralidharan COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) C.M.A.Nos.999 of 2024 and 4802 of 2019 were posted for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, where the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant was not ready to get along with the cases. At his request, these matters were adjourned to

03.12.2024 with a rider that on that date, if the cases are not argued, orders would be passed based on the available records. However, on 03.12.2024, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner/appellant. Hence, in order to give one more chance, these cases were posted on 04.12.2024 under the caption "for dismissal". Even on 04.12.2024, there was no representation for the petitioner/appellant. Therefore, the Division Bench decided to dismiss these appeals for default by the order dated 04.12.2024.

¶2Now, the present petitions are filed to condone the delay of 41 days in filing the petitions to restore C.M.A.Nos.999 of 2024 and 4802 of 2019, which were dismissed for non-prosecution on

04.12.2024.

¶3We have gone through the proceedings recorded at earlier occasions, where, we find that the petitioner/appellant dealt with these matters in a cavalier manner, as he was not appearing before this Court on two occasions. After the cases were dismissed for default, now, petitions have been filed, that too with the delay of 41 days. It shows the scant respect given by the petitioner/appellant before this Court.

¶4Therefore, we feel that, in fact, these petitions have to be dismissed, however, Mr.Suyesh Palande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant made a request that one more chance may be given to the petitioner/appellant to show his bonafide to get along with the cases on merits.

¶5In order to give such chance, as last chance, we feel that these petitions could be allowed, however, on terms. Therefore, these petitions are allowed on condition that the petitioner/appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in each case to the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court of Madras, within four weeks from today, failing which, these petitions shall get dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court. (R.S.K., J.) (A.D.M.C., J)

28.03.2025 Note: Issue order copy on 28.03.2025 drm To:

¶1The Member Secretary High Court Legal Services Committee High Court of Madras, Chennai.

R. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND A.D.MARIA CLETE

, J.

(drm) C.M.A.Nos.999 of 2024 & 4802 of 2019

28.03.2025