The High Court condoned a 391-day delay in filing a civil miscellaneous appeal against a dismissal of a divorce petition, subject to the petitioner paying Rs. 5,000 to the respondent.
Petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000 to respondent via Pay Order or Demand Draft within three weeks to secure condonation of delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CMP(MD) No.4099 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )
Tuesday, the First day of September Two Thousand and Twenty
PRESENT
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.RAJAMANICKAM
CMP(MD) No.4099 of 2019 IN
CMA(MD) No.SR16181 of 2019
THIYAGARAJAN ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT
Vs
SARASWATHI ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
Prayer in CMP(MD) No.4099/ 2019:
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 391 days in filing the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
Prayer in CMA(MD) No.SR16181/ 2019:
To set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 06.02.2018 passed in HMOP.No.180 of 2017 before the Family Court Judge, Sivagangai.
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.G.PRABHU RAJADURAI, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.S.MUTHALRAJ, Advocate on behalf of the respondent, the court made the following order:-
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J. , ]
This Court heard the submissions of Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Muthalraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
1/2
CMP(MD) No.4099 of 2019
in support of this petition and would submit that because of the fact that the petitioner is a Lathe worker, he is extremely finding it difficult to get a job and hence, the delay had occurred.
4.However, the learned counsel appearing of the respondent has strongly opposed this petition by stating that in the absence of any proper explanation, such a huge delay cannot be condoned.
5.This Court upon hearing the rival submissions, is of the considered view that for allowing this petition, the petitioner is to be put on terms.
sd/01/09/2020
/ TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.
TO
THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SIVAGANGAI.
COPY TO:
THE REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL),
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER IN
CMP(MD) No.4099 of 2019 IN CMA(MD) No.SR16181 of 2019 PM Date :01/09/2020
SRS/ AKM/ SAR-II/ 03.09.2020/ 2P/3C
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 391 days in filing the civil miscellaneous appeal can be condoned on terms.
Whether the petitioner's financial difficulties justify condonation of delay.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THIYAGARAJAN
SARASWATHI
M.SATHYANARAYANAN
P.RAJAMANICKAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
