Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Sets Aside High Court Order Condoning 1,116‑Day Delay as Abuse of Process

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal against the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) order dated 25 April 2023 which had allowed a civil revision and condoned a delay of 1,116 days in preferring a first appeal against an ex‑parte decree in a suit for specific performance.

The Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court had misapplied precedents and had condoned delay which had earlier been found unexplained by this Court. The bench observed that the facts of the case were distinguishable from N. Mohan v. R. Madhu (2020) 20 SCC 302, relied upon by the High Court, because in the present matter the defendants were duly served, appeared initially and filed written statements. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the present appeal, the Respondents seek to raise the very same reason to condone the delay as were previously canvassed, without placing any fresh or additional material to distinguish the current reason from the one already discussed and dismissed. This Court is of the considered view that such a repetition of grounds already scrutinized and held untenable amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Although the applications for condonation of delay are filed under different provisions of the law but the said provisions provide for concurrent remedies through different mechanisms and if the application filed under one provision has already been dismissed by a court of competent jurisdiction, by applying its judicial mind and held that the reasons for delay were not sufficient, a subsequent application filed under different provision, reiterating the same contentions or grounds of delay, cannot be entertained.”

Background The dispute arose from a sale agreement dated 17 August 2015 for a parcel of land at Nainarkoil @ Naganathasamoothiram Village for Rs. 3 lakhs. The plaintiff (now appellant) filed O.S. No. 110/2015 for specific performance after Respondent No.1 failed to execute the sale deed; during pendency Respondent No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of Respondent No.2 on 26 November 2015. Defendants stopped appearing and the trial court proceeded ex‑parte and passed a decree on 7 February 2017; sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was subsequently executed pursuant to execution proceedings. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC (I.A. Nos. 119/2015 and 462/2018) with large delays which the trial court allowed on 19 August 2019, setting aside the ex‑parte decree and condoning delay. The plaintiff obtained CRP(MD) Nos.1688‑89/2019 which the High Court allowed on 9 November 2021; Special Leave Petitions against that order (SLP Nos.2054‑55/2022) were dismissed by this Court on 25 February 2022, affirming the ex‑parte decree.

After those proceedings attained finality, respondents initiated a fresh appeal under Section 96(2) read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC but filed it 1,116 days late; the First Appellate Court dismissed the condonation application on 8 February 2023. The High Court, however, allowed the civil revision, condoned the delay upon deposit of costs and directed payment of Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent and expedited disposal of the appeal. The operative portion of the High Court order read in part: “Subject to such payment, the application filed by the petitioners in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 ... shall stand allowed.”

On appeal to this Court (2025 INSC 672 / arising out of SLP (C) No. 17575 of 2023), the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's reliance on N. Mohan was misplaced because that case involved non‑service of summons, whereas here the defendants had been served and had participated initially. The Court held that the respondents only reiterated grounds for condonation that had already been examined and rejected in earlier rounds, including by this Court in SLP Nos.2054‑55/2022, and found such repetition to constitute an abuse of process. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the impugned High Court order dated 25 April 2023 and allowed the appeal. Pending applications stood disposed of. The record showed respondents tendered the Rs. 1 lakh as directed by the High Court but the appellant refused to accept and respondents deposited the amount in court.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 672 Case Title: Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Names not specified in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Names not specified in judgment]