Allowed

Thirumeni v. Vennila

Madras HC4 Oct 2021CMP(MD)/10163/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court condensed a delay of 294 days in paying the deficit court fee for an appeal on the condition that the petitioner pays Rs. 1,000 to the Advocates Welfare Fund within three weeks, failing which the petition stands dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 294 days in paying deficit court fee in CMSA(MD) No. 46451 of 2017 is condoned, subject to payment of Rs.1,000 to Advocates Welfare Fund within three weeks.

Thirumeni Vs Vennila — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Monday, the Fourth day of October Two Thousand and Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

CMP(MD) No.10163 of 2018 IN CMSA(MD) No.SR46451 of 2017

¶7

THIRUMENI ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶8

¶9

VENNILA ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶10

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 294 days in paying the deficit court fee of Rs.40/- in CMSA (MD)SR No.46451 of 2017

¶11

PRAYER IN CMSA(MD) No.SR46451 of 2017:

¶12

To call for the records in H.M.O.P.No.211 of 2009 dated 28.10.2015 on the file of Sub Court, Pudukottai which in turn confirmed in C.M.A.No.7 of 2015 dated 07.03.2017 on the file of Principal District Judge, Pudukottai and set aside them by allowing this CMSA.

¶13

ORDER :This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.N.BALAKRISHNAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.M.M.IQBAL, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:-

¶14

This Petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 294 days in paying the deficit court fee of Rs.40/- in the above Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal.

¶15

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶16

3.Mr.M.M.Iqbal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that he has no objection to allow this petition.

¶17

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court is of the opinion that the matter was returned during the year 2017 and it has been represented only in the year 2018 and

¶18

¶19

therefore, this Petition is ordered and the delay of 294 days in paying the deficit court fee in the above Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is condoned on condition that the Petitioner pays a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the Advocates Welfare Fund, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, bearing Account No.7087208431 in Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai, towards costs, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, this Petition shall stand automatically dismissed, without further reference to this Court.

¶20

Sd/04/10/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶21

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.

¶22

¶23

1.THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PUDUKOTTAI.

¶24

2.THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PUDUKOTTAI.

¶25

COPY TO

¶26

THE OFFICER INCHARGE, ADVOCATES WELFARE FUND, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶27

ORDER IN CMP(MD) No.10163 of 2018 IN CMSA(MD)No.SR46451 of 2017 Date :04/10/2021

¶28

VB/SKN/SAR-I/07.10.2021/2P/4C

¶29

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

Thirumeni v. Vennila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thirumeni v. Vennila

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

Sekar, Vs Murugesan

Rafahnah Yasmeen Vs Mohamed Salman Faris

P.Muthu Selvi Vs P.Murugesan

P.M.Karthikeyan Vs a.v.Dharshini

Ganesan, Vs Jebasian Jeyakumar

K.Jasmin Vs B.Pradeepraja