Allowed

J.Mahesh, v. v.S.Ramasubramanian, (Died)

Madras HC8 Aug 2019CMP(MD)/3815/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a petition filed to condone inordinate delay in setting aside a disposal order of a civil revision petition. The court permitted the filing on terms, directing the petitioner to pay a fine to the Bubbles Day Care fund due to inadequate explanation for the delay.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner pays Rs. 5,000/- to the Bubbles Day Care fund within two weeks.

J.Mahesh, Vs v.S.Ramasubramanian, (Died) — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶4

Thursday, the Eighth day of August Two Thousand Nineteen

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.S.SUNDAR

¶7

CMP(MD) No.3815 of 2018 IN CRP No.1125 of 2001

¶8

J.MAHESH ... PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER

¶9

V.S.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, (DIED)

¶10

M.GOVINDAN (CEASED TO BE TRUSTEE),

¶11

S.DURAIPANDIAN (DIED)

¶12

1.RAMKISHORE

¶13

VATHSALA (DIED) M.AYYAMPERUMAL (DIED) ... 1^st RESPONDENT/ 4^th RESPONDENT

¶14

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to Condone the delay of 3104 days in filing the petition for setting aside the order of dismissal on 04.09.2009 of the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD).NO.1125 of 2001 as against the 4th respondent and thus render justice.

¶15

PRAYER IN CRP No.1125 of 2001:

¶16

Pleased to allow the above C.R.P. Setting aside the Fair and Decreetal orders of the Learned Principal District Judge,Madurai dated 23.03.1998 in I.A.No.46 of 1996 in O.S.No.4 of 1915 and to Order the said I.A. as prayed for appointing the Petitioner as hereditary trustee of Lala Sri Ranga Chathram Charities Trust, Madurai for life and thus render justice.

¶17

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. M.S.BALASUBRAMANIA IYER, Advocate for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner, the court made the following order:-

¶18

¶19

Since notice sent to the sole respondent was earlier returned with an endorsement “no such addressee”, the petitioner was permitted to take notice by substituted service (paper publication). Accordingly, the petitioner has produced proof of taking substituted service.

¶20

2.This petition is filed to condone the delay of 3104 days in filing the petition to set aside the order of dismissal on 04.09.2009 passed as against the 4^th respondent.

¶21

3.The petitioner admits that he did not take notice through Court, even though, this Court has ordered notice and hence the civil revision petition was dismissed as against the 4^th respondent by order dated 04.09.2017. Challenging the order of dismissal dated 04.09.2009, passed as against the 4^th respondent, the present petition is filed to condone the inordinate delay.

¶22

4.The delay is not properly explained. However, the reasons that the petitioner did not know about the earlier order of this Court, cannot be neglected. Giving benefit of doubt in favour of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petition may be ordered on terms.

¶23

In the result, this petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Bubbles Day Care, being run by the Women Lawyers Association, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

sd/08/08/2019 / TRUE COPY /

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

THE OFFICER INCHARGE, THE BUBBLES DAY CARE, RUN BY THE WOMEN LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶28

CMP(MD) No.3815 of 2018

¶29

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

¶30

ES/JC/SAR 2/19.08.2019/2P/2C

J.Mahesh, v. v.S.Ramasubramanian, (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Mahesh, v. v.S.Ramasubramanian, (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Amutha W/O.Ramesh Pitchaiah Vs Mariappan S/O.Manickam Asari

The Executive Officer, Vs Amuthapushpam

P.R.Chandran Vs Subbaiah S/O.Subbaiah

Jessee Traders Vs M/S.S.M.Thomayar and Sons

P.Kandasamy Vs S.Valliyammai

S.Bernice, Vs v.Prabhu