C.M.P.No.13957 of 2026 in L.P.A.SR.No.62342 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.M.P.No.13957 of 2026 in L.P.A.SR.No.62342 of 2026 MR Enterprises 93/1, APMC Yard Block A, 3rd Cross Mysore Karnataka 570 025, India. … Petitioner Vs 1. Shri Prasanna Anjaneya Agrotech Represented by Partner Mr.M.R.Srikanth Sy.No.142, Hissa 1, Sindoor Road, Maanvi Raichur – 584 123, Karnataka, India. 2. The Registrar of Trademarks Anna Salai, Guindy Industrial Estate SIDCO Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 032. .. Respondents Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P.No.13957 of 2026 in L.P.A.SR.No.62342 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 For Respondents : Ms.Swati Mittal for R1 O R D E R (Made by P.Velmurugan J.) This miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of 77 days in filing the above appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen residing at Mysore and had been suffering from various age- related ailments during the relevant period. Owing to his health condition, he was unable to travel, attend to his legal affairs, resulting in a delay in furnishing instructions to his counsel, collecting the necessary documents and preferring the appeal. It was further submitted that the delay was neither willful nor wanton but was occurred by bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner has not produced any medical records to substantiate the alleged ailments or the treatment said to have been undergone. It was contended that the petitioner has failed to establish any bona fide or sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 77 days and that the reasons assigned in the affidavit are vague, bald and unsupported by any material. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P.No.13957 of 2026 in L.P.A.SR.No.62342 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Though the explanation offered by the petitioner is not supported by adequate documentary evidence, in order to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, this miscellaneous petition stands ordered. 6. The Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order. (P.V.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.) 24.07.2026 ms https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P.No.13957 of 2026 in L.P.A.SR.No.62342 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 P.VELMURUGAN J. AND K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J. ms C.M.P.No.13957 of 2026 in L.P.A.SR.No.62342 of 2026 24.07.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis