← Library
Madras High CourtCMP/29320/2025dismissed

J. Murali Manohar v. Deepika R. Jain

2026-02-25Honourable Mr.Justice S. Sounthar8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR J.Murali Manohar ... Petitioner (in all CMPs) vs.

1.Deepika R Jain ... Respondent in CMP.No.29320/2025 1.P.Bharat Kumar ... Respondent in CMP.No.29324/2025 1.M/s.Abhishek Kumar Jain, A Hindu Undivided Family Firm, Rep. by its Manager and Karta, Abhishek Kumar Jain, No.13/29, Kalathiappa Street, Rainbow, Indra Apartments, 5th Floor, Choolai, Chennai - 600112 ... Respondent in CMP.No.29325/2025 2.Media One Global Entertainment Ltd.

Rep. by its Director Dr.J.Murali Manohar, No.26, Rzia House, Saraswathi Street, Mahalingapuram, Chennai - 600034.

... Respondent (in all CMPs) COMMON PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1587 days in filing the petition to restore the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1353, 1354 and 1355 of 2017, dated 22.03.2021.

1/8

For Petitioner : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran (in all CMPs) For R1 : Mr.T.Srikanth for M/s.S.T.Skandhakumar (in all CMPs) C O M M O N O R D E R These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are filed seeking to condone the delay of 1587 days in filing petition to restore the order passed by this Court in the respective civil revision petitions.

2. The 1st respondent herein filed suits in O.S.No.3577, 3578 and 3579 of 2016 seeking recovery of money against the petitioner herein and a Company called 'Media One Global Entertainment Limited' represented by its Director namely the petitioner. The petitioner and the above said Company, who were arrayed as defendants in the suit filed applications in I.A.Nos.12001, 12002 and 12003 of 2016 seeking leave to defend the suits and the same were dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the above said civil revision petitions were filed by the petitioner. 2/8

3. This Court by orders dated 22.03.2021 allowed the civil revision petitions on condition that the petitioner and 2nd respondent shall deposit 50% of the pronote amount in the suit to the credit of respective suit numbers within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order in civil revision petitions. The said order further reads that in case of failure to comply with the condition, the civil revision petitions should be automatically dismissed. The petitioner and 2nd respondent failed to comply with the conditions, therefore, the default clause in the order passed in the above civil revision petitions came into operation that necessitated the petitioner herein to file the present civil miscellaneous petitions to restore the original order passed in civil revision petitions.

4. Since there was a delay of 1587 days in filing the petition seeking to restore the original orders, the instant applications have been filed to condone the delay of 1587 days.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petitions, it was stated by the petitioner that the orders in civil revision petitions were passed on 22.03.2021 during Corona Pandemic Period and at that point of time, the petitioner was held up in United Kingdom. It is also stated that he 3/8

was not aware of the order passed in the civil revision petitions and the same came to his knowledge only when he received Insolvency Notice in applications filed by the 1st respondent during September-2025. It was also stated that the petitioner had resigned from the Directorship of the above mentioned company. It was also stated that he was suffering from renal disease and he was undergoing treatment at London and also continued treatment in India. In Nutshell, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he became aware of the orders passed in civil revision petitions only when he received notice in the year 2025 in Insolvency Applications filed by the 1st respondent.

6. The 1st respondent herein filed counter affidavit and denied various allegations made in the condone delay petitions. The 1st respondent specifically denied the averment of the petitioner that he acquired knowledge about the orders passed in civil revision petitions only in the year 2025, after receipt of notice in insolvency applications. It is further averred that even during April-2024, the petitioner filed an application through another Counsel seeking extension of time in Filing No.CMP.60841 of 2024. According to the 1st respondent, the averment in the present affidavits, as if he acquired knowledge only in the year 2025 is not correct. 4/8

7. A perusal of the orders passed in the civil revision petitions would indicate that the petitioner and the Company 'Media One Global Entertainment Limited' represented by the petitioner in his capacity as Director, engaged the single counsel and both of them were represented on 22.03.2021 by the said Counsel. The orders in civil revision petitions were passed in the presence of Counsel after hearing his argument. Therefore, knowledge of the Counsel is the knowledge of the party and hence, the petitioner cannot say that he acquired knowledge about the orders passed in civil revision petitions only in the year 2025. It is also pertinent to note that it is not the case of the petitioner that there was a communication gap between the petitioner and his Counsel. Further, there is no explanation why the petitioner failed to contact his counsel for more than four years to enquire about the stage of the case.

8. It is also seen from the typed-set of papers filed by the 1st respondent that petitioner filed an application seeking extension of time to comply with the orders passed in the above civil revision petitions through some other Counsel as early as April-2024. In the affidavit sworn by the petitioner in support of the said application, it was clearly stated he is 5/8

the Director of the Company called 'Media One Global Entertainment Limited'. The said averment goes against the averment in the present affidavits as if he resigned the Directorship.

9. In the above said affidavits sworn during April-2024, it was stated by the petitioner that he acquired knowledge about the orders passed in the above revisions accidentally when he was searching the online portal for some other case numbers. However, in the present affidavit, he stated that he acquired knowledge about the civil revision petition orders only in the year 2025 after receipt of notice in insolvency applications. Therefore, it is clear, there is a serious contradiction between the averment made in the present affidavit and the averment made by the petitioner in the affidavit sworn during April-2024 filed in the typed-set of papers filed by the 1st respondent.

10. If the petitioner is in the habit of verifying the online portal, he could have followed the case status from his home and acquired knowledge about the order earlier. What prevented him from following the case status in the online portal from 2021 to 2025 is also not explained. 6/8

11. In view of the above said reasons, I am not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petitions. The petitioner has not made out any case and has not shown any sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 1587 days in filing the petitions to restore the original orders passed in the above civil revision petitions.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

25.02.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No : Yes / No dm To The XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

7/8

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

dm 25.02.2026 8/8