Allowed

Anandayee Ammal v. Varadaraju Pillai

Madras HC28 Apr 2023CMP/6896/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed two applications to condone a delay of over five years and restore a dismissed second appeal. The court accepted the explanation that the petitioner's client was bedridden and the dismissal was due to counsel reporting no instructions. Costs were imposed on the applicant.

What did the court decide?

C.M.Ps allowed; petitioners to pay Rs.5,000 by 02.06.2023; appeal restored if cost is not paid.

Anandayee Ammal Vs Varadaraju Pillai — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C. M. P. N o s.68 9 6 and 6897 of 2023 in S.A.No.1724 of 2004

¶2

C.M.P.Nos.6896 & 6897 of 2023 in S.A.No.1724 of 2004

¶3

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

¶4

These applications are filed to set aside the dismissal order made on 20.04.2018 and to restore the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1724 of 2004, and to condone the delay of 1555 days in filing the restoration petition to restore the appeal on the file.

¶5

The case of the petitioners is that the appeal has been listed for hearing before this Court on 20.04.2018. On that date, the appellants were not informed of the proceedings having been kept pending by the counsel who appeared for the petitioners earlier. In the mean time, Mrs.Annadayee Ammal was terribly sick and therefore was not in a position to give instructions to her counsel. The first respondent and the appellant are close relatives and the first respondent was aware of the fact that Annadayee Ammal was bedridden and was not in a position to give instructions to her counsel. Consequently the counsel reported no instructions and this Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal for default on 20.04.2018 to restore the said Second Appeal. Hence the present applications to condone the delay and to restore the appeal have been filed.

¶6

1 / 4

¶7

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

¶8

C. M. P. N o s.68 9 6 and 6897 of 2023 in S.A.No.1724 of 2004

¶9

Mr.N.K.Vaanan appearing for Mr.Raamesh Kumar, learned counsel for

¶10

the respondents would strongly oppose the applications stating every day's delay has not been explained and taking advantage of the litigation the parties are creating a confusion in the suit properties. He would state that the appellants cannot blame their counsel and wriggle free from their responsibility of pursuing the appeal.

¶11

I have gone through the affidavit and heard the arguments on either side. The delay has been explained on the ground that Annadayee Ammal was bedridden and also to the fact that this was well within the knowledge of the respondents. The petitioners can only take such steps before the High Court like engaging a counsel and moving the appeal. She cannot be expected to be present on everyday of hearing. In this case, it is not possible for her to be present because she was sick and unfortunately for her, her counsel had also reported no instructions. This Court being left with no other option, had dismissed the appeal for default. The appellants are now ready to pursue the appeal and there has been a delay.

¶12

2 / 4

¶13

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

¶14

C. M. P. N o s.68 9 6 and 6897 of 2023 in S.A.No.1724 of 2004

¶15

I am satisfied with the reasons given in the affidavit and I am guided by the principle of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafique and Another. Vs.

¶16

Munshi Lal & Another(AIR 1981 SC 1400). Therefore, C.M.P.No.6897 of 2023 is allowed on payment of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only). Consequently, C.M.P.No.6896 of 2023 is also allowed on the same terms. The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) on or before 02.06.2023. Call on 05.06.2023. In case the cost is not paid on or before that date, the C.M.Ps shall stand automatically dismissed without further reference to this Court.

28.04.2023

KST

1/2

3 / 4

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

¶22

C. M. P. N o s.68 9 6 and 6897 of 2023 in S.A.No.1724 of 2004

¶23

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶24

kst

¶25

C.M.P.Nos.6896 & 6897 of 2023 in S.A.No.1724 of 2004

¶26

28.04.2023

¶27

4 / 4

¶28

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

Anandayee Ammal v. Varadaraju Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandayee Ammal v. Varadaraju Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamalam Vs Rajamani

Jayaraman Vs Sreeramulu

Saroja Ammal Vs Kasilinga Padayachi

Sivanandham (Deceased) Vs v.Lalitha

Selvam Vs M.a.Abusali

Best Fabrics Vs the Board of Trustees of Port of Chennai