Allowed

Balasubramanian (DECEASED)1.ANDAL v. Munusamy

Madras HC4 Jun 2024CMP/10195/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to condone a 625-day delay in filing a second appeal against reversal findings. Petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased first defendant, learned of the decree only on execution. Court allowed the petition subject to costs.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 625 days condoned subject to payment of Rs.2000/- cost; Registry to number the second appeal if otherwise in order.

Balasubramanian (DECEASED)1.ANDAL Vs Munusamy — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

C.M.P.No.10195 of 2024 in S.A. SR.No. 18560 of 2024

¶3

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶4

Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.43 of 2016, the petitioner preferred the above Second Appeal, however there is a delay of 625 days in filing the above second appeal arose. Hence, the present petition has been filed to condone the delay in preferring the second appeal.

¶5

Mr.M.Santhanaraman, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as the deceased husband of 1^st petitioner following up the case pertaining to the subject property with his counsel, the petitioners are not aware of case details, however, he died on 24.02.2023. Thereafter, they came to know about the decree, while the respondent attempted to execute the decree. Therefore, due to lack of communication, they are not able to file the above Second Appeal within a stipulated time and the said delay caused is neither willful nor wanton, but for the above said reasons. Accordingly, he has filed the above petition.

¶6

Mr.C.Munusamy, learned counsel for respondent appeared and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis raised objections in allowing this petition.

¶7

¶8

On perusal of records, it reveals that the 1^st defendant in the suit is

¶9

the appellant herein and challenging the reversal finding of courts below, his legal heirs have preferred this Second Appeal. On considering the objections raised by learned counsel for respondent and also in order to give one more opportunity and on considering the reasons stated by the petitioner in the affidavit seems to be justifiable one, this court is inclined to allow this petition on condition that the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.2000/- payable to the learned counsel respondent within a period of one week from today and on such deposit, Registry is directed to number the above Second Appeal if it is otherwise found to be in order and post the matter on 24.06.2024.

¶10

04.06.2024

¶11

rpp

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶15

rpp

¶16

C.M.P.No.10195 of 2024 in S.A. SR.No. 18560 of 2024

¶17

04.06.2024

¶18

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

Balasubramanian (DECEASED)1.ANDAL v. Munusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasubramanian (DECEASED)1.ANDAL v. Munusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Baby (died) 1. S. Jayaprakash Vs G. Mani

Babu Naidu Vs N. Rama Devi

R.V. Refractories and Saradha Cermics Ltd. Vs B.L. Shankar

Vignesh Vs the State Rep.by

M.Sekar Vs the State Rep. by

P. Savithiri Vs M Paulraj