CMP(MD). No.15760 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 17/04/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CMP(MD). No.15760 of 2025 in SA(MD).Sr.No.78522 of 2025 1. Ramasamy @ Ramaiah 2. Mariyappan 3. Ayyammal ... Petitioners Vs 1. P.Subbaiah (Died) 1.Piramuthu 2. Mariyappan 3. Nagalakshmi ... Respondents PRAYER :- To condone the delay of 802 days in filing the Second Appeal and thus render justice. For Petitioners : Mr.G.Gomathisankar For respondents 1 and 2 : Mr. P.P. Alwin Balan ORDER This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 802 days in filing the above Second Appeal. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD). No.15760 of 2025 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the contesting respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, taking me through the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, stated that the 2nd petitioner was working as a coolie in Kerala and was not aware of the proceedings. His father was aged and sick, and his sister was also married and living away from the family and hence, both of them were not in a position to know about the judgment passed by the appellate Court reversing the findings of the trial Court. He would also state that immediately upon contacting the advocate, he applied for a certified copy, and the Second Appeal has been filed without any further delay thereafter, on being advised by the counsel. That being a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, an opportunity may be given to the petitioners to contest the judgment of the first appellate Court on merits. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would state that the averments set out in the petition are unsupported and 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD). No.15760 of 2025 unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence. He would further state that the affidavit is bereft of relevant dates on which the petitioner met his advocate and thereafter filed the copy application. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, and hence, the CMP is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side. 6. The suit is one for declaration and recovery of possession. Admittedly, it is seen that the respondents, despite a decree in their favour, have not chosen to execute the decree for recovery of possession till date. 6. In light of the above, considering the substantial rights that are at stake and the essential rights of the appellants involved in the Second Appeal, I am inclined to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to contest the appeal on merits. However, at the same time, the prejudice 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD). No.15760 of 2025 caused to the respondents needs to be compensated, and accordingly, the CMP is allowed subject to the condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the counsel for the respondents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Post on 27/04/2026 for reporting compliance. 17.04.2026 trp 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis