Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous petition seeking condonation of over 1199 days delay in filing a second appeal, finding appellants failed to prove mental illness or provide satisfactory reasons for inaction.
Condonation of delay petition dismissed; Second Appeal rejected.
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.
C.M.P(MD)No.4668 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 16.01.2022 DELIVERED ON : 21.02.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR C.M.P(MD)No.4668 of 2019 and
S.A(MD)SR.No.38540 of 2018
1.Palanisamy
2.Veeramalai
... Petitioners/Appellants
Vs.
1.P.Muthusamy
2.V.Muthusamy
3.Karnam
4.The District Collector, Trichirappalli District.
5.The Thasildar, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
PRAYER IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION: Civil Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1199 days in filing the Second Appeal.
PRAYER IN SECOND APPEAL: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.10 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sub Ordinate Judge, Trichirapalli, dated, 30.06.2014, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.510 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Manapparai, dated 20.12.2004.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.G.Sridharan
for R2 and R3
ORDER
The present application has been filed to condone the delay of 1199 days in filing the second appeal.
1/3
C.M.P(MD)No.4668 of 2019
family and was wandering elsewhere. His family members after hectic efforts, have traced him just three months back. After enquiry, he came to know that no second appeal has been filed in time. He had further contended that he had bright chances of success in second appeal and even now he is taking continuous treatment. In the light of the said facts, he has sought for condoning the delay of 1199 days in filing the above second appeal.
2/3
C.M.P(MD)No.4668 of 2019
dismissed. Consequently, S.A.(MD)SR.No.38540 of 2018 stands rejected.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-I)
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
gbg
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Principal District Munsif, Manapparai.
3.The District Collector, Trichirappalli District.
4.The Thasildar, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.
COPY TO:-
The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 Copies)
+1 CC to M/s.G.SRIDHARAN, Advocate ( SR-7310[F] dated 21/02/2022 )
+1 CC to M/s.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-8463[F] dated 24/02/2022 )
order made in C.M.P(MD)No.4668 of 2019 in S.A(MD)SR.No.38540 of 2018 Dated: 21.02.2022
nsn(CO) GC(03.03.2022) 3P 9C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 1199 days in filing the second appeal is adequately explained by the appellant?
Whether the alleged health reasons and wandering justify the condonation of delay in this second appeal?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Palanisamy
Veeramalai
P. Muthusamy
V. Muthusamy
Karnam
The District Collector, Trichirappalli District
R. Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
