In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the trial court's order dismissing an application to condone a 1064-day delay in filing an appeal. The petitioner asserted a three-year illness of jaundice as the cause for delay.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no reasons to interfere with the trial court's order refusing 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN CRP No.2815 of 2021
1.Chettichiammal
2.Thangavel 3.Mariyammal 4.Sasikala 5.Thangammal 6.Dhanapakkiyam
7.Sivaji
... Petitioners
Vs
1.Unnamalai 2.Kandasamy
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 03.09.2021 made in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in un-Numbered A.S. /2020 dated.03.09.2021 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Omalur, Salem District.
For Petitioners : M/s.R.Muruga Bharathi
O R D E R
The challenge in this revision is to the order of the trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 1064 days in filing an appeal against the decree for partition.
2.The reasons that were furnished as sufficient cause for the delay impelled the learned Subordinate Judge to dismiss the application and I do not see any reason to differ from the opinion of the learned Subordinate Judge.
3.The petitioner sought to explain the delay of 1064 days in filing the appeal contending that she had a severe attack of Jaundice from 25.11.2017 to 15.10.2020. There cannot be any better false hood than this averment made in the affidavit filed in support of this application. Merely because there is no Allopathy treatment available for Jaundice, the reason that a person suffered from Jaundice is made a standard reason for condonation of delay before Courts since the Courts do not insist upon proof of treatment. But, to say that a person suffered Jaundice for three years is ultimate false hood. I
therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial Court, the revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vs
To:
The Subordinate Judge, Omalur, Salem District.
CRP No.2815 of 2021
EV(CO) A.SK(20.01.2022)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order refusing to condone a delay of 1064 days in filing an appeal against a partition decree.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chettichiammal and others
Unnamalai and others
R.Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
