CMP NO. 23390 of 2025 AND AS SR NO. 151275 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CMP NO. 23390 of 2025 AND AS SR NO. 151275 OF 2025 KIRUBASANKARI W/o Sivakumar, Res at No.32, Vanoli Street, Kaaterikuppam, Puducherry 605 502 Appellant(s) Vs VIJAYA W/o N.Nagarajan, Res at Door No.19, 2nd Cross Street, Ajees Nagar, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry 605 010 Respondent(s) AS SR NO. 151275 of 2025 KIRUBASANKARI Appellant(s) Vs VIJAYA Respondent(s) CMP NO. 23390 of 2025 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP NO. 23390 of 2025 AND AS SR NO. 151275 OF 2025 For Appellant(s): M/s. K. Harishankar T.K. Bhaskar mithreyi kasthurirangan mithun prakash r.shriram adhethyen paranv r For Respondent(s): M/s.V.V.Sairam-ms/108/1974 V.Selvaraj For Sole Respondent AS SR NO. 151275 of 2025 For Appellant(s): K. Harishankar For Respondent(s): ORDER This petition is filed to condone the delay of 94 days in filing the present appeal Sr.No.151275 of 2025. 2. Heard Mr.K.Harishankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Premkumar, learned counsel for the respondent. I find from the affidavit that the delay 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP NO. 23390 of 2025 AND AS SR NO. 151275 OF 2025 in filing the appeal is 94 days. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's husband was taking care of the matter and he had to undergone knee replacement surgery and hence could not follow the matter. In fact, he would also bring it to my notice that it was only the petitioner's husband who entered into the witness box and gave evidence. He therefore states that the delay has been sufficiently explained and serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if the appeal is not permitted to be prosecuted on merits, especially, considering the decree has now been put to execution and the respondent is pressing for orders of attachment in the execution petition. 3. Per contra Mr.G.Premkumar, learned counsel for the respondent objects to the delay being condoned by stating that the delay is not 94 days, but much more and the affidavit does not disclose the correct facts. He would further states that as on date more than Rs.22,00,000/- is due under the decree. 4. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application. I have also carefully considered the submissions advanced on either side. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP NO. 23390 of 2025 AND AS SR NO. 151275 OF 2025 5. The suit for specific performance filed by the respondent has been dismissed. However, the alternative relief of refund of advance has been ordered and the same has been put to execution seeking refund of money which has been paid by the respondent / plaintiff allegedly to the appellant / defendant. Admittedly, delay is only 94 days. The Registry has verified the delay and thereafter numbered the application. The learned counsel for the respondent is unable to substantiate on what basis, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, delay is more than 94 days. In any event, the delay is not inordinate and there is no willful or deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioner / appellant to non-suit the petitioner in the Section 5 application. In view of the above, delay is condoned. 6. Appeal may be admitted and posted before the Deputy Registrar for admission. If papers are otherwise in order, thereafter, the CMP may be listed before this Court. 24.11.2025 mtl 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP NO. 23390 of 2025 AND AS SR NO. 151275 OF 2025 P.B.BALAJI.,J mtl CMP NO. 23390 of 2025 AND AS SR NO. 151275 OF 2025 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP NO. 23390 of 2025 AND AS SR NO. 151275 OF 2025 24.11.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis