Thalapathy v. Chockalingam
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge dismissed C.M.P. No. 2586/2007 seeking condonation of delay to restore a Second Appeal, holding 38 days fell beyond the 45-day window as the Second Appeal had expired.
What did the court decide?
C.M.P. No. 2586/2007 seeking restoration of Second Appeal dismissed; consequent C.M.Ps closed.
What the court decided
1
C.M.P.No.2586 of 2007 and CMP.Nos.16413 to 16415 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.1697,1702 and 1706 of2019
in S.A.No.310 of 1996
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
The learned counsel for the respondent in Second Appeal No.310 of 1996
has submitted that pursuant to the order of dismissal of Second Appeal dated 03.02.2006, C.M.P.No.25886 of 2007 has been filed by the appellant praying to condone the delay of 38 days in filing petition to restore the Second Appeal.
- Meanwhile, as the first respondent died and the learned counsel for the appellant has filed to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent-Chockalingam in C.M.P.Nos.16413 to 16415/2019 and the present C.M.P.Nos.1697, 1702 and 1706 of 2019 are filed to amend the plaint.
- Today, when the matter came up before this Court, after order of the
dismissal of Second Appeal, E.P No.16/13 in O.S.No.5 of 99 was filed before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Uttiramerur for delivery of the suit property and after observing the formalities and after service being effected the delivery has been handed over to the plaintiff on 16.08.2007 vide decree delivery receipt and the same was recorded in the said E.P proceedings and E.P was terminated after recording delivery of possession.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the permissible period for filing a petition to restow the dismissed Second Appeal is 43 days or can be extended to 45 days.
Coram
TEEKAA RAMAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court