CRP. No.3769 of 2017 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP. No.3769 of 2017 and CMP. No.17553 of 2017 Nivas Khan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.Zahir Hussain 2.Nargis Banu ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and final orders dated 16.06.2017 passed in I.A. No.568 of 2016 in O.S. No.245 of 2013 on the file of III Additional District cum Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam. For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Pothiraj For Respondent(s): No Appearance ORDER Heard Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned counsel for the petitioner. The service on the respondents has been returned with an endorsement 'unclaimed'. Names of the respondents are also printed in today's cause list, the return of notice as unclaimed is deemed to be proper service. The respondents are called and set exparte. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.3769 of 2017 __________ Page2 of 4 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in a suit for recovery of money filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 05.12.2015. An Application was filed to restore the suit to file along with an application to contend delay of 96 days. The said Application came to be dismissed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, on the ground that in a different proceedings, the petitioner had appeared in Court during the relevant period of time and therefore, did not find sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 96 days. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would however state that the petitioner did not dispute the factum of having appeared in a different proceedings altogether, but however, that was a Court is not within the premises of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam but at Erode. 4. The reasons assigned in paragraph No.6, does not in any manner run contrary to the appearance of the petitioner in the other Court as well. Hence, the Court ought to have seen the delay was only 96 days and should have not taken a hyper-technical approach in dismissing the Application. The petitioner has made out sufficient cause entitling him the condonation of day and I.A. No.568 of 2016 in O.S. No.245 of 2013, passed by the Trial Court is set aside. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.3769 of 2017 __________ Page3 of 4 5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 08-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The III Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.3769 of 2017 __________ Page4 of 4 P.B.BALAJI.J., rkp CRP. No.3769 of 2017 and CMP. No.17553 of 2017 08.07.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis