The single judge allowed the condonation of delay of 212 days in filing a Second Appeal, accepting the petitioner's affidavit grounds including illness, business loss due to fire, and the pandemic.
The delay of 212 days in filing the Second Appeal is condoned.
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.No.13978/2020 in SA.SR.No.72818/2020
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
The present miscellaneous petition is filed to condone the delay of 212 days in filing the Second Appeal.
2.Though the respondents are represented by a counsel, he is not present today when the matter is called. Since this petition is pending for a long time, this petition is disposed of on merits with the records available.
3.In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioner has stated that due to sudden illness, the petitioner was not able to approach his counsel in time to collect the copy and that, the fruit shop which the petitioner was running, was destroyed due to fire accident and therefore, the petitioner could not recover from his financial crisis and mental agony. The inconvenience caused to the public on account of Covid-19 pandemic virus, is also stated as a reason in the affidavit. The reasons stated in the affidavit are convincing. This Court has passed orders extending the period of limitation.
4.Since this Court is satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered and the delay of 212 days in filing the Second Appeal is condoned.
25.02.2022
AP
Internet: Yes
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 212 days in filing the Second Appeal can be condoned based on the reasons stated in the affidavit?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
S.S.SUNDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
