Allowed

S. Murugesan v. P. Meenakshisundaram

Madras HC15 Feb 2022CMP/19589/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras condoned a delay of 1007 days in filing a second appeal. The petitioner cited counsel unavailability and financial hardship as reasons. The court accepted the explanation but imposed a fine of Rs. 2500 as a condition for condonation due to lack of due diligence. The respondent did not appear.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 1007 days in filing the second appeal is condoned, subject to the payment of Rs. 2500 to the Legal Services Authority within two weeks.

S. Murugesan Vs P. Meenakshisundaram — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Fifteenth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

CMP.No.19589 of 2021

¶7

in SA.SR.No.45688 of 2021

¶8

S.MURUGESAN, [ PETITIONER ] S/O.SUBBAIYAN, DOOR NO.78, KRISHNASWAMY NAGAR, RAMANATHAPURAM, COIMBATORE 641 045.

¶9

Vs P.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM [ RESPONDENT ] S/O.R.PUNNIYANATHAN PILLAI, DOOR NO.14, SRI RAJESWARI NAGAR, KOVAIPUDUR PIRIVU, KUNIAMUTHUR POST, NEAR BATHRAKALIAMMAN KOVIL, COIMBATORE-641 008.

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to condone the delay of 1007 days in filing the above Appeal and thus render justice.(CMP.No.19589 of 2021)

¶11

Order : This petition coming on this day for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.R.V.GAYATRI, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Respondent not appearing either in person or by an Advocate, the court made the following order:-

¶12

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 1007 days in filing the above Appeal. Despite notice being served on respondent, none appeared and opposed this petition.

¶13

2.The petitioner is the plaintiff in the Suit in O.S.No.223/2008 which was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.8 lakhs from the defendant with interest at 12%. The Suit was dismissed and the Lower Appellate Court in AS.No.81/2013 dismissed the Appeal preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same the above Appeal is filed.

¶14

3.The petitioner has stated that the learned counsel could not contact him immediately after the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court and the petitioner is residing with his relative due to financial problems and difficulties. It is the specific case https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about the status

¶15

of the First Appeal when he contacted the erstwhile counsel.

¶16

4.It is stated that only during the 1st week of October 2020, the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of Appeal on 13.03.2017 and the learned counsel for the petitioner had applied for certified copies through his new counsel on 15.03.2017.

¶17

5.The petitioner has come forward with this petition on the ground that the delay is neither willful nor wanton. In the absence of any material or ground this Court is unable to doubt the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition filed by the petitioner.

¶18

6.Since the delay has been explained by giving probable reasons, to the satisfaction of this Court, this Court is unable to hold that the delay is not properly or duly explained. However, this Court is of the view that the delay could have been avoided by due diligence.

¶19

7.Hence, this petition is ordered and the delay of 1007 days is condoned on condition that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.2500/- [Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only] to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, attached to this Court within the period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

-sd/-

¶21

15/02/2022

¶22

/ TRUE COPY /

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. ) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶24

¶25

1 THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, COIMBATORE.

¶26

2 THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE, COIMBATORE.

¶27

COPY TO

¶28

THE SECRETARY, THE TAMILNADU LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, HIGH COURT, MADRAS-104.

¶29

Order

¶30

¶31

CMP.No.19589 of 2021 in SA.SR.No.45688 of 2021

¶32

Date :15/02/2022

¶33

From 26.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Interim Orders in this format https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GS(23/02/2022)

S. Murugesan v. P. Meenakshisundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Murugesan v. P. Meenakshisundaram

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

Mariappan Vs C. Venkatachalam

Smt.Lalitha Vs Smt.Santhamani

Devaraj Vs Renukadevi

Mathiyalagan Vs Govindasamy

Minor. Selvarasu Vs T. Prema

Meenakshi Vs C. Ragavendiran