A.Subramanian v. The Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 27.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN C.M.P(MD) No.18183 of 2025 in Rev.APLC(MD)Sr.No.62794 of 2025 1.A.Subramanian (Cause Title is accepted vide court order dated 29.10.2025 made in CMP(MD) No.15846/2025 in Rev.Aplc(MD) SR No.62794/2025 by PVJ and KKRKJ) 2.S.Mupadathy

3. P.Pitchaikani

4. S.Irulachi

5. R.Esakkidurai S.Kannan(died)

6. S.Premma Nayakam

7. M.Pandarasamy

8. N..Sivasubbiramaniyam

9. M.Murugan

10. R.Ramachandran

11. Murugeshwari

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Director Sericulture Department Asthampatti, Salem 636007 2.The Assistant Director Sericulture Department Tenkasi Tenkasi District.

...Respondents

PRAYER in CMP(MD) No.18183 of 2025 :- Petition filed under Section 5 of the limitation act to condone the delay of 268 days in preferring the review application against the order passed in W.A(MD) No.1490 of 2024 dated 30.09.2024.

Prayer in Rev.APLC(MD)Sr.No.62794 of 2025:

Petition filed under Section 114 of CPC r/w. Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC to review the judgment passed b this Court in WA(MD) No.1490 of 2024dated 30.09.2024. For Appellant : Mr.G.Thalaimuthurasu

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN. J.,) This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 268 days in preferring the review application against the order passed in W.A(MD) No.1490 of 2024 dated 30.09.2024.

2. The reasons assigned by the review applicants for condoning the delay at para no.9 is as follows:

"I humbly submit that Mr.S.Kannan who was the 6th petitioner in the writ petitioner was leading us in this issue who unfortunately passed away on 02.09.2023 and therefore we couldn't approach our counsel in time and that apart there was difference of opinion amount us whether to proceed legally

or approach the Government to ventilate our grievance, therefore the delay of 268 days has crept in filing the review application which is neither wilful nor wanton but due to out financial difficulty as well as work schedules".

3. The reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit is not satisfactory. The review applicants have to assign reason for each and every day delay. In view of the same, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed Consequently the Rev.APLC(MD)Sr.No.62794 of 2025 stands rejected at the SR stage itself.

[P.V.J,] [K.K.R.K.J,] 27.11.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav

P.VELMURUGAN, J and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

aav C.M.P(MD) No.18183 of 2025 in Rev.APLC(MD)Sr.No.62794 of 2025 27.11.2025