The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay because the first defendant failed to pay the directed cost to the Chief Justice Relief Fund and did not file a substantive appeal despite indicating intent to do so.
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.
A.No.2826 of 2024 in C.S.No.614 of 2013
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
The above application filed by the first defendant to condone the delay of 140 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 06.08.2019 in C.S.No.614 of 2013 was allowed on 26.06.2024 on the condition that the first defendant shall pay Rs. 50,000/- as cost to the credit of the Chief Justice Relief Fund on or before 18.07.2024. The matter was directed to be listed under the caption "for reporting compliance".
2. T oday, when the matter was taken up for hearing, it was represented that the order of this court dated 26.06.2024 has not been complied with. Furthermore, the applicant has also filed a memo expressing the intent to file an appeal, but no appeal has been filed challenging the said order dated 26.06.2024.
30.07.2024
r n s
Page No. 1/2
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
r n s
A.No.2826 of 2024 in C.S.No.614 of 2013
30.07.2024
Page No. 2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the first defendant complied with the conditional order of 26.06.2024 regarding condonation of delay in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree?
First Defendant
P. VELMURUGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
