M.Raman v. M.Raju
Case brief
What is this about?
2012 in A.S.No.996 of 2005 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.…
What did the court decide?
The delay in filing the petition to restore the appeal is condoned.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
C.M.P.No. 1007 of 2012
in
A.S.No.996 of 2005
This petition has been filed for condonation of delay in filing a petition to restore the appeal that was dismissed as against the respondents 2, 4, 5, 8 to 10.
2.Notice was ordered in this petition and it is seen that the respondents, except R8, have either been served or they would appear through counsel. In respect of the respondents 1 & 2, they are no more and petitions to bring on record the legal representatives have been allowed in the appeal.
3.As far as the 4th respondent herein / Sarojini is concerned, an order has been passed dispensing with notice in C.M.P.N.11443 of 2022.
4.Accepting the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this petition is ordered, the delay in filing the petition to restore the appeal is condoned.
(R.S.M., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 11.06.2024
kkn
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Respondents 2, 4, 5, 8 to 10
Coram
R. Subramanian
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court