Allowed

The Project Director v. R.Indira

Madras HC11 Oct 2022CMP/12208/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice and Krishna Kumar J. condoned a 47-day delay in filing a writ appeal. The court accepted that random paperwork mix-up in the petitioner's advocate's office constituted a sufficient cause, allowing the petitioner to pursue their challenge.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous petition for condonation of delay of 47 days was allowed, and the writ appeal is deemed to have been filed within time.

The Project Director Vs R.Indira — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.M.P.No.12208 of 2022 in W.A.No.SR 75380 of 2022

¶2

C.M.P.No.12208 of 2022 in W.A.No.SR 75380 of 2022

¶3

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶4

and

¶5

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

¶6

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶7

The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit-Chennai has filed this civil miscellaneous petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 47 days in preferring the writ appeal.

¶8

This Court, while entertaining the application, issued notice to the respondents. Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 2 & 3. Although service was complete, no one appears for the first respondent.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the impugned judgment was made ready on 04.02.2022, the same was received by the petitioner on 22.04.2022. When the counsel was approached and advised to prepare the draft writ appeal for approval and for filing, in the

¶10

Page 1 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

C.M.P.No.12208 of 2022 in W.A.No.SR 75380 of 2022

¶12

month of May 2022, the counsel's office was reorganized, as a result, some of

¶13

the papers got mixed up with the other papers in the office. After taking serious efforts, the bundles were traced and thereafter the appeal was filed. In the meanwhile, the delay of 47 days in preferring the writ appeal had occurred. The delay is neither wilful nor wanton, but only due to the aforementioned reasons.

¶14

We also find that when the petitioner approached the counsel and handed over the papers, only in the office of the counsel, the papers got mixed up, as a result, the aforementioned delay has occurred. Finding sufficient cause, the delay is condoned and the civil miscellaneous petition is ordered accordingly.

¶15

(T.R.,A.C.J.) (D.K.K.,J.) 11.10.2022

¶16

¶17

Page 2 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

C.M.P.No.12208 of 2022 in W.A.No.SR 75380 of 2022

¶19

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

C.M.P.No.12208 of 2022 in W.A.No.SR 75380 of 2022

¶24

11.10.2022

¶25

Page 3 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Project Director v. R.Indira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Project Director v. R.Indira

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

K.Anandaraman Vs the Commissioner

N.Ramachandran Vs D.Yasodhai Ammal

S.Venkatesh Vs The District Collector

G.Bakthavachalam Vs The District Collector

M.Stalin Vs The Commissioner

Smt. P.Manjula Vs The Director