Allowed

Saju Kaliyuvilayil Varghese v. M/S.Financial Software And Systems Private Ltd.

Madras HC12 Mar 2024A/1305/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to condone a 129-day delay in filing an application to restore an original petition dismissed for non-representation. The court found the delay justified because cause lists printed the previous counsel's name instead of the newly engaged counsel, allowed the condonation and directed listing of the restoration application.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 129 days in filing the restoration application condoned; restoration application directed to be listed on 19.03.2024.

Saju Kaliyuvilayil Varghese Vs M/S.Financial… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

A.No.1305 of 2024 in O.P.No.524 of 2014

¶2

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶3

This application has been filed to condone the delay of 129 days in filing the application for restoration of the original petition which was dismissed on 05.09.2023.

¶4

The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that earlier the original petition itself was filed with a delay and the learned counsel

¶5

who have initially engaged had failed to appear before the Court.

¶6

Thereafter, the present counsel namely M/s.Gupta and Ravi were engaged. By an order dated 16.08.2023, the restoration application was allowed after the new counsel engaged had argued the case on the said date.

¶7

It is further submitted that the original petition was thereafter listed on 31.08.2023 and 05.09.2023. However, in the Cause List, only the name of the previous counsel was printed. Hence, there was no representation on behalf of the applicant. Thus, O.P.No.525 of 2014 was

¶8

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

¶9

dismissed on 05.09.2023.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has produced copies of the Cause Lists dated 31.08.2023 and 05.09.2023 indicating that the name of the previous counsel for the applicant was printed and not that of new counsel namely M/s.Gupta and Ravi.

¶11

Thus, there is a justifiable cause to condone the delay in filing the

¶12

application for restoration of the Original Petition to the file of this Court.

¶13

Registry is directed to list the application for restoration of the

¶14

Original Petition.

¶15

Registry is directed to ensure the names of the previous counsel for the applicant is deleted from the Cause List instead the name of the

¶16

present counsel namely M/s.Gupta and Ravi be printed.

¶17

Application to restore the Original Petition to the file of this Court

¶18

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

¶19

is directed to be listed on 19.03.2024.

12.03.2024

arb

C.SARAVANAN, J.

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

¶24

arb

¶25

A.No.1305 of 2024 in O.P.No.524 of 2014

¶26

12.03.2024

¶27

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

Saju Kaliyuvilayil Varghese v. M/S.Financial Software And Systems Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saju Kaliyuvilayil Varghese v. M/S.Financial Software And Systems Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madura Coats Private Limited Vs the Director General of

Trs Lift and Shift Services Private Limited Vs Container Corporation Of India Limited

K Jyothi Vs Sundaram Finance Limited

Hdb Financial Services Limited Vs Surya S

M/s Mercedes Benz Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sandhya Constructions And Estates Private Limited

Rahul Thanaji Pol Vs M/S.Financial Software And Systems Private Ltd.