Jeeva v. Dean Jones
Case brief
What is this about?
Court condoned a delay of 95 days in filing a Consumer Court appeal. Notice to respondents 1 and 3 was dispensed with as they were absent. The underlying appeal was subsequently proceeded with.
What did the court decide?
Condonation of delay of 95 days; Order as prayed for; Notice to respondents 1 and 3 dispensed with.
What the court decided
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
C.M.P.No.17619 of 2023 in C.M.A.SR.No.35441 of 2023
This Petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above captioned C.M.A.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 1 and 3 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and therefore, requested this Court to dispense with notice to the respondents 1 and 3 and had also made an endorsement to that effect. Hence, notice to the respondents 1 and 3 is dispensed with.
3.Ms.A.Salomi, learned counsel undertakes to file vakalat for the 2nd respondent.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
5.Considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this petition and being satisfied with the same, the delay is condoned. Hence, this petition is ordered as prayed for.
6.Registry is directed to number the C.M.A., if it is otherwise in order and list the same in due course by printing the name of Ms.A.Salomi, as learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
08.09.2023
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 95 days in filing the Appeal be condoned.
Whether notice to respondents 1 and 3 be dispensed with.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Respondents 1 and 3
- respondent
Respondent 2
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court