Allowed

Rajendran v. v.Ramalingam @ Dharmalingam (Died), 1.R.Meenammal

Madras HC13 Sept 2024CMP/12985/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to condone a 742-day delay in filing a Second Appeal against a first-appeal decree confirming the original judgment, citing illness and lack of communication. The court allowed the petition subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to respondents' counsel.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 742 days condoned on payment of Rs.5000/- cost to respondents' counsel; Registry directed to number the appeal.

Rajendran Vs v.Ramalingam @ Dharmalingam (Died)… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.P. No. 12985 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.11004 of 2024

¶2

C.M.P. No. 12985 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.11004 of 2024

¶3

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶4

This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 742 days in filing the above Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2022 passed in A.S.No.61 of 2021, on the file of Principal District Judge, Tirupur confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.135 of 2013 dated 29.03.2016 on the file of Subordinate Judge of Udumalpet.

¶5

Mr.Ilamvaluthi, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that due to illness and due to lack of communication, immediately after getting certified copy of judgment and decree, he was not able to come to Chennai and engage a counsel for filing the Second Appeal. Only during the second week of February 2023, he handed over papers to present counsel and after making it ready the appeal papers, the second appeal was filed on 29.01.2024. Hence, there is a delay of 742 days in filing the above second appeal arose, which is neither willful nor wanton. Therefore, he filed this petition to condone the delay in filing the above second appeal.

¶6

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

¶7

C.M.P. No. 12985 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.11004 of 2024

¶8

Mr. N.Umapathi, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 appeared

¶9

and raised formal objections in allowing this petition.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as well as to give one more opportunity and also 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.5000/- payable to the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Registry is directed to number the Second Appeal if it is otherwise found to be in order and post the matter on 25.09.2024.

¶11

13.09.2024

¶12

rpp

¶13

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

¶14

C.M.P. No. 12985 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.11004 of 2024

¶15

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶16

rpp

¶17

C.M.P.No. 12985 of 2024 in S.A.SR. No. 11004 of 2024

¶18

13.09.2024

¶19

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

Rajendran v. v.Ramalingam @ Dharmalingam (Died), 1.R.Meenammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran v. v.Ramalingam @ Dharmalingam (Died), 1.R.Meenammal

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

T.Elumalai Vs National Pharma Distributors

S.Vijayakumar Vs the State Rep by

Ganapathy Vs State Rep by

Tmt. Velankanni(died) Vs M.Vaitheesan

Vijaya Vs Sellammal

S. Ravikumar(Deceased), 1.R.VARALAKSHMI Vs N. Srinivasan