Disposed

T. Jeba Kumar v. W.Robertson Solomon

Madras HC18 Jan 2017CMP(MD)/155/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court considered a petition for condonation of delay in filing a second appeal. The court found the reasons satisfactory but the delay excessive, allowing condonation upon payment of Rs. 500 to a crèche.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 232 days condoned on payment of Rs. 500 to The Bubble's Day care Creche within one week; failure to pay leads to automatic dismissal.

T. Jeba Kumar Vs W.Robertson Solomon — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶2

Wednesday, the Eighteenth day of January Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

CMP(MD) No.155 of 2017 IN SA(MD) No.SR7890 of 2016

¶6

T. JEBA KUMAR ... PETITIONER / APPELLANT

¶7

¶8

W.ROBERTSON SOLOMON ... RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT

¶9

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to condone the delay 232 days in Representing the above S.A.SR.No.7890 of 2016 and pass such further order or other orders as this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the case and thus render justice.

¶10

PRAYER IN SA(MD) No.SR7890 of 2016:

¶11

Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015 made in A.S.No.6 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 05.07.2011 made in O.S.No.188 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

¶12

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.T.ANTONY ARUL RAJ, Advocate for the petitioner and the court made the following order:-

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

2 There is a delay of 232 days in representing the papers. Though the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, since the delay is on the higher side, the same can be condoned on payment of costs. Hence, the delay of 232 days in representing the paper is condoned on condition that the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.500/https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Rupees Five Hundred only) to The Bubble's Day care Creche

¶15

maintained by the Women Advocates Association attached to this Bench

¶16

within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petition shall stand automatically dismissed without further reference to this Court.

¶17

3 Accordingly, the petition is ordered.

¶18

sd/18/01/2017 / TRUE COPY /

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶20

¶21

1 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE TIRUNELVELI

¶22

2 THE ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE, TIRUNELVELI COPY TO: THE OFFICE INCHARGE, THE BUBBLE'S DAY CARE CRECHE, WOMEN ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶23

JAM/20.01.2017/SS 2-KSM/ SAR I 2P-4C

¶24

ORDER IN CMP(MD) No.155 of 2017 IN SA(MD) No.SR7890 of 2016 Date :18/01/2017

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T. Jeba Kumar v. W.Robertson Solomon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Jeba Kumar v. W.Robertson Solomon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.N.Loganathan, Vs P.Sundararaj

Mercyrajam Vs Daisy Hilda

R.Suresh Kumar Vs Muthukannan

Subramanian Moopanar Vs Danushkodi

Ganesan Vs Mariappan

Kalyani Vs the Panchayat Board