THIRUNAGALINGAM versus LINGESWARAN & ANR.

Citation: [2025] 6 S.C.R. 253 · Decided: 12-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 253 : 2025 INSC 672
Thirunagalingam 
v. 
Lingeswaran & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 6843 of 2025)
13 May 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
An appeal suit along with the application for condonation of delay 
of 1116 days was preferred. The High Court allowed the application 
for condonation of delay of 1116 days. Whether the delay is to be 
condoned or not, and if the delay is justifiable, then whether the 
case should be allowed to proceed on merits, or be dismissed on 
procedural grounds.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLI, r.3A and s.151 – In 
the first round of litigation, respondents could not succeed in 
setting aside the ex-parte decree passed by the Trial Court in 
the suit, and hence they preferred the appeal suit along with 
the application for condonation of delay of 1116 days – The 
said application for condonation of delay of 1116 days was 
dismissed by the First Appellate Court – However, the High 
Court allowed the application for condonation of delay of 1116 
days and directed the First Appellate Court to proceed with 
the appeal suit on merits – Correctness:
Held: In the present case, from the perusal of the record, it can be 
observed that in the first round of litigation, the respondents were 
duly served with the summons after institution of the aforesaid 
suit – In response, they entered an appearance and filed their 
written statement, thereby submitting themselves to the jurisdiction 
of the Trial Court – However, despite being present in the initial 
stage of proceedings, respondents choose not to further appear 
before the Trial Court continuously – Consequently, the Trial Court 
was constrained to proceed ex-parte against them – Further, 
the High Court has relied upon N. Mohan, while passing the 
impugned order, however, on comparison, the facts of the said 
case are different from the case at hand – Consequently, the 
* Author
254
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
impugned order passed by the High Court is perverse in nature 
and is not in conformity with the legal principles – Accordingly, the 
impugned order is set aside – Proceeding further on the issue of 
condonation of delay of 1116 days in filing the appeal suit, since 
the respondents assigned the very same reasons in I.A. No. 1 of 
2022 in Unnumbered A.S. No. of 2022 as raised in I.A. Nos. 462 
of 2018 and 119 of 2019 that had already been dismissed by this 
Court vide S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2054 & 2055 of 2022, the application 
for condonation of delay of 1116 days cannot be sustained – This 
Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2054 & 2055 of 2022, after going through 
the evidence placed on record, rightly held that the delay has not 
been properly explained – An order of this Court, passed upon 
judicial consideration, attains finality unless set aside through 
appropriate appellate or review mechanisms – In the present 
appeal, the respondents seek to raise the very same reason to 
condone the delay as were previously canvassed, without placing 
any fresh or additional material to distinguish the current reason 
from the one already discussed and dismissed – This Court is 
of the considered view that such a repetition of grounds already 
scrutinized and held untenable amounts to an abuse of the process 
of law. [Paras 25, 26, 28, 29, 30]
Condonation of delay – Plea for – Duty of the Court:
Held: It is a well-settled law that while considering the plea for 
condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is 
to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the 
party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of 
the main matter – Only when sufficient cause or reasons given 
for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is 
equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may consider 
the merits of the main matter for the purpose of condoning the 
delay. [Para 31]
Condonation of delay – Condoning delay not an act of 
generosity:
Held: Delay should not be condoned merely as an act of 
generosity – The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at 
the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party – In the present 
case, the respondents/defendants have failed to demonstrate 
reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this crucial 
requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet. [Para 32]
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 
255
Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr.
Case Law Cited
N. Mohan v. R. Madhu [2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.