C. Nagendiran v. v. Munusamy
Case brief
What is this about?
The court condoned a 150-day delay in representing a second appeal based on the petitioner's explanation that the appeal paper was misplaced during a judicial search.
What did the court decide?
Delay of 150 days in representing the second appeal allowed; registry directed to number and post the appeal.
What the court decided
1
C.M.P.No. 11807 of 2024 in S.A. SR.No. 124282 of 2023
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.29 of 2017, the petitioner preferred the above Second Appeal, however there is a delay of 150 days in representing the above second appeal arose. Hence, the present petition has been filed to condone the delay in representing the second appeal.
- Mr.M.Kempraj, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the above Second Appeal was returned for rectifying certain defects on 27.09.2023 however, the paper was misplaced with other bundles and it could not be traced immediately. Thereafter, after due search, it was traced out. Hence, there is a delay of 150 days arose in representing the above second appeal and the said delay caused is neither willful nor wanton, but for the above said reasons. Accordingly, he has filed the above petition.
- Considering the facts and circumstances and on considering the reasons stated by the petitioner in the affidavit that the bundle was misplaced, to give one more opportunity to the petitioner, this court is inclined to allow this petition. Registry is directed to number the above Second Appeal if it is otherwise found to be in order and post the matter on 21.06.2024.
rpp
11.06.2024
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay in representing the second appeal should be condoned.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
T.V. Thamilselvi
Coram
T.V. Thamilselvi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court