Allowed

Bharathan @ Bharatharaman Died 1. Ramayi v. Muthaiah

Madras HC3 Aug 2022CMP(MD)/5707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order handles a condonation petition for restoring a dismissed Second Appeal (SA No.161 of 2010) delayed by 3268 days. The High Court, noting a connected appeal is pending, restores the appeal. It imposes a Rs.10,000 cost with a requirement to pay half to the respondent and half to the attached Siddha Clinic, complying by 23.08.2022.

What did the court decide?

Condoned delay of 3268 days and restored the appeal SA(MD) No.161 of 2010 for final hearing.

Bharathan @ Bharatharaman Died 1. Ramayi Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CMP(MD) No.5707 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶4

Wednesday, the Third day of August Two Thousand and Twenty Two

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SESHASAYEE

¶7

CMP(MD) No.5707 of 2022 IN SA(MD) No.161 of 2010

¶8

BHARATHAN @ BHARATHARAMAN (DIED) ... SOLE APPELLANT IN S.A

¶9

1.RAMAYI

¶10

2 GANESAN

¶11

3 LAKSHMI

¶12

4 SARASU

¶13

5 KANTHAN

¶14

6 MUTHUKUMAR

¶15

7 MANI ... PETITIONERS / PROPOSED APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 8

¶16

¶17

MUTHAIAH ... RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT

¶18

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 3268 days in filing the said Restoration Petition.

¶19

PRAYER IN SA(MD) No.161 of 2010:

¶20

To allow this Appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram in A.S.No.6/2008 dated 14.11.2009 in so far as granting of Decree for declaration of title is concerned and confirm the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram passed in O.S.No.266/1998 dated 31.07.2007.

¶21

ORDER : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.K.KUMARAVEL, Advocate for the petitioners and of MR.K.MAHENDRAN, Advocate on behalf of the Respondents the court made the following order:-

¶22

From a single suit a single First Appeal emanated, which has now resulted in 2 Second Appeals. One of the Second Appeals is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis already taken on record in S.A(MD)No.217 of 2011. That appeal was

¶23

1/2

¶24

CMP(MD) No.5707 of 2022

¶25

laid by the plaintiff. The sole defendant in the suit has now come forward with S.A(MD)No.161 of 2010. That was dismissed for default. Now to restore the said appeal, the appellant/defendant had taken out the present C.M.P(MD)No.5707 of 2022 for condoning the delay of 3268 days.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. Since the connected appeal is still pending this appeal is restored. But for the inconvenience caused to the Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow it with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), out of which, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is directed to be paid to the respondent and the balance Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only) is directed to be paid to the Siddha Clinic attached to this Bench. This is required to be complied with on or before 23.08.2022.

¶27

3. List the appeal on 24.08.2022 under the caption 'for final hearing'

¶28

sd/03/08/2022 / TRUE COPY /

¶29

04/08/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO

¶30

1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, RAMANATHAPURAM.

¶31

2 THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, RAMANATHAPURAM.

¶32

COPY TO: THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SIDDHA HOSPITAL,

¶33

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶34

ORDER

¶35

IN CMP(MD) No.5707 of 2022 IN SA(MD) No.161 of 2010 Date :03/08/2022 CM

¶36

MK/PN/SAR.IV/04.08.2022/2P/4C

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

2/2

Bharathan @ Bharatharaman Died 1. Ramayi v. Muthaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharathan @ Bharatharaman Died 1. Ramayi v. Muthaiah

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

Muniappan Vs Mayilsamy

Muniandi Vs Sulochan

Rathinapandi Vs Chinnathukkamuthu

Issac Vs Arulselvam

Subbulakshmi Vs Muthulakshmi

Manoharan, Vs Uma