Allowed

Vasanthi v. Soundararajan

Madras HC5 Oct 2021CRP/1873/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227. It quashed the lower court's order dismissing an application to condone a 345-day delay in re-filing an appeal. The delay arose because the petitioner's attorney lost the rectified record in his office. Directing the lower court to take the appeal on record, the High Court highlighted that matrimonial matters require a lenie

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was allowed; the impugned order condoning the delay was set aside and the Principal District Court directed to take the appeal on record.

Vasanthi Vs Soundararajan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP(NPD).No.1873 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.10.2021

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD)No.1873 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Vasanthi ...Petitioner
Vs
1.Soundararajan
2.Shankar ... Respondents
Prayer Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, prayed to set aside the fair and dereetal order dated 05.11.2014 made in
I.A.No.29 of 2014 in Un.No. CMA on the file of the Principal District Court,
Namakkal.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Valliappan
For Respondents : Not ready in notice

¶7

ORDER

¶8

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the dismissal order dated 05.11.2010 passed by the Court below in I.A.No.29 of 2014 in Un.No. CMA, seeking to condone the delay of 345 days in re-presenting the appeal.

¶9

2.The case of the revision petitioner is that, H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2008 was

¶10

1/4

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶12

CRP(NPD).No.1873 of 2015

¶13

filed by the first respondent/husband for divorce and the same was allowed by the Sub Judge, Thiruchengode on 13.02.2013. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner/wife preferred an appeal before the Principal District Court, Namakkal. The appeal has been filed in time. However, due to some defects, the same was returned for compliance. The petitioner's counsel after rectifying the defects, re-presented the papers with the delay of 345 days. Therefore, I.A., was filed to condone the delay of 345 days in representing the appeal, stating that the papers got mingled with the other case bundles in the counsel's office. However, the Court below dismissed the said application stating that no sufficient cause has been assigned for the delay and every day's delay must be explained.

¶14

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials

¶15

available on record.

¶16

4.This is not a case where the delay occurred on the part of the revision petitioner in filing the appeal. The appeal has been filed in time. However, the

¶17

papers were returned for rectification of certain defects. While so, the papers

¶18

2/4

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶20

CRP(NPD).No.1873 of 2015

¶21

got mingled in the office of the petitioner's counsel. Therefore, it could not be re-presented in time.

¶22

5.In view of the above, this Court is unable to understand why the Court
below has taken such a harsh decision to dismiss the appeal, after all, this is a
matrimonial issue, the Court below might have taken a lenient view. Therefore,
in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to condone the delay.
Accordingly, the impugned order in I.A.No.29 of 2014 in Un.No CMA is set
aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Principal District Court,
Namakkal is directed to take the CMA on record and dispose of the same in
accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions is closed.
05.10.2021
Index: Yes
Internet:Yes
Speaking order/Non Speaking Order
rst
To:
The Principal District Court, Namakkal.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.

¶23

3/4

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶25

CRP(NPD).No.1873 of 2015

¶26

r st

¶27

C.R.P.(NPD)No.1873 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
05.10.2021

¶28

4/4

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Vasanthi v. Soundararajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanthi v. Soundararajan

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

Ponnusamy Vs P.Umapathy

Mr.S.R.K.P.Srinivasan Vs Mr.P.Usman

L.Rajendran Vs D.Rajendran

The Managing Director Vs Mrs. Saaral

M. Krishnakumar Vs Rangammal

Indhirani Ammal Vs Rajiv Gandhi