Mr.Pachayammal Alias V.Kamalammal v. Mr.M.V.Mohanraj And Another

A.Nos.609, 610 & 612 of 2026 in CS.DR.No.81072 of 2025 MASTER 18.02.2026 COMMON ORDER

1. There are 3 applications filed by the applicant. A.No.609 of 2026 is filed to condone the delay of 42 days in representing the original petition in CS.DR.No.81072 of 2025. A.No.610 of 2026 is filed to condone the defective presentation and A.No.612 of 2026 is filed to condone the delay of 62 days for paying deficit court fees of Rs.150/-.

2. The reason stated for the delay in representation in A.No.609 of 2026 is that by oversight the registry did not sign in the seal on the date of presentation and the delay is not on the part of the applicant and it is only due to delay caused by the registry. The reason stated for the defective presentation in A.No.610 of 2026 is that due to inadvertence of the junior counsel the case papers presented without obtaining AR signature. The reason for delay in paying the deficit court fees is only due to wrong calculation and inadvertence of the applicant counsel.

3. Now the point to be decided is that whether these applications are to be allowed or not?

4. This court has come across an order of our Hon'ble Division Bench in OSA.No. 66 of 2023 to condone the delay of 267 days in representation in an application in which the Hon'ble Division Bench condoned the delay by deleting the cost imposed. The extracted portion is hereunder: "It is seen that the delay has occurred only in respect of re-presenting the

original petition filed against the award passed by the first respondent Arbitrator and not in filing the same. Admittedly, this Court has dealt with umpteen number of cases, extending some leniency for condoning the delay. Applying the same analogy and also considering the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay in re-presenting the petition papers, this court is inclined to modify the order of the learned Judge, by deleting the costs of Rs.25,000/- imposed on the appellant, while condoning the delay in re-presenting the petition."

5. This order of Hon'ble Division Bench was followed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in A.No. 1219 of 2023 in Arb.OP.DR.No.9142 of 2022 and the same was allowed without cost. The portion extracted is hereunder: "In view of the earlier order passed by the learned single Judge in Applicatiion No.1232 of 2023 dated 03.03.2023 which had been modified by the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.66 of 2023 by judgment dated 29.03.2023, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned Master. Accordingly, this application is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs".

6. Though this Court is not completely satisfied with the reason stated by the applicant and that too when it is the duty of the litigant to get it signed and approved from the registry before presenting the case, it is not proper for the applicant to blame that the delay was on the part of registry and that too with no evidence to substantiate the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the applications, considering the fact that the delay is only in refiling and not in filing and following the orders passed by our Hon'ble Division Bench in OSA.No.66 of 2023 which was followed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in A.No. 1219 of 2023 in Arb.OP.DR.No.9142 of 2022, this court has no hestitation to take lenient view in these applications and is inclined to allow these

applications.

Accordingly, all the applications are allowed. No order as to costs. MASTER