Muthukumar Vs S.Sagunthala

Muthukumar vs S.Sagunthala

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 23, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1684022

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1684022
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice N.Senthilkumar
Decided On: Feb 23, 2026
Case Number: CRP(MD)/3833/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Muthukumar

Respondent

S.Sagunthala

Excerpt

.....to setaside the order dated 19.11.2025 passed in i.a.no.1 of 2025 in o.s.no.55 of 2024 on the filed of the learned subordinate judge, sattur. for petitioner in both crps : mr. k. vishnu karthick for respondent in both crps. : mr.m. jegadeesancommon orderthese civil revision petitions have been filed to set aside / relax the conditional order dated 30.10.2025 passed in i.a. no.1 of 2025 in o.s. no.55 of 2025 by the subordinate judge, sattur, and to set aside theorder dated 19.11.2025 passed in i.a. no.1 of 2025 in o.s. no.55 of2024 on the file of the subordinate judge, sattur.2. the challenge is to the order passed by the trial court in i.a.no.1 of 2025, which was allowed by condoning the delay of 66 days, subject to the condition of depositing a sum of rs.2,50,000/-. subsequently, the trial court dismissed the application on 19.11.2025 for non-compliance with the said condition.3. the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitionersubmitted that the suit claim is only for a sum of rs.5,28,533/-, whereas the trial court imposed an onerous condition while allowing the application for condonation of delay by directing the revision petitioner to deposit a sum of rs.2,50,000/-.4. the order passed by the trial court is not reasonable. when thesuit claim itself is only for a sum of rs.5,28,533/-, imposing a condition to deposit a sum of rs.2,50,000/- for condoning the delay of 66 days is excessive and onerous. directing the revision petitioner to deposit nearly 50% of the claim amount cannot be accepted.5. hence, this court, by order dated 19.12.2025, directed therevision petitioner to deposit a sum of rs.1,25,000/-. the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has filed a memo showing that a sum of rs.1,25,000/- has been deposited to the credit of the suit in o.s. no.55 of 2024 on the file of the sub court, sattur. the said memo is recorded.6. hence, both the civil revision petitions are allowed, and theorders passed by the trial court dated 30.10.2025 and.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 23/02/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR CRP(MD). Nos. 3833 and 3853 of 2025 and CMP(MD).Nos.20186 and 20266 of 2025 Muthukumar ... Petitioner in both CRPs Vs D.Sagunthala .. Respondent in both CRPs
PRAYER :- Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 CPC to set aside / relax the conditional order dated 30.10.2025 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2025 in O.S.No.55 of 2025 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sattur and to setaside the order dated 19.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.55 of 2024 on the filed of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sattur. For Petitioner in both CRPs : Mr. K. Vishnu Karthick For Respondent in both CRPs. : Mr.M. Jegadeesan

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside / relax the conditional order dated 30.10.2025 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2025 in O.S. No.55 of 2025 by the Subordinate Judge, Sattur, and to set aside the

order dated 19.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2025 in O.S. No.55 of

2024 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sattur.

2. The challenge is to the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.

No.1 of 2025, which was allowed by condoning the delay of 66 days, subject to the condition of depositing a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Subsequently, the trial Court dismissed the application on 19.11.2025 for non-compliance with the said condition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner

submitted that the suit claim is only for a sum of Rs.5,28,533/-, whereas the trial Court imposed an onerous condition while allowing the application for condonation of delay by directing the revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.

4. The order passed by the trial Court is not reasonable. When the

suit claim itself is only for a sum of Rs.5,28,533/-, imposing a condition to deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for condoning the delay of 66 days is excessive and onerous. Directing the revision petitioner to deposit nearly 50% of the claim amount cannot be accepted.

5. Hence, this Court, by order dated 19.12.2025, directed the

revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has filed a memo showing that a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- has been deposited to the credit of the suit in O.S. No.55 of 2024 on the file of the Sub Court, Sattur. The said memo is recorded.

6. Hence, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, and the

orders passed by the trial Court dated 30.10.2025 and 19.11.2025 are set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 23.02.2026 TRP Index : yes/ no Internet : yes / no To Subordinate Judge, Sattur. N. SENTHILKUMAR,J TRP CRP(MD). Nos. 3833 and 3853 of 2025 and CMP(MD).Nos.20186 and 20266 of 2025 Date : 23/02/2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Muthukumar vs S.Sagunthala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice N.Senthilkumar