Kalaiselvan v. Sivakumar
Case brief
What is this about?
This order condones a delay of over 1400 days in filing a restoration petition for Second Appeal No. 620 of 2009, accepting the appellant's explanation of lack of counsel contact and the death of his mother during the pandemic.
What did the court decide?
Delay in filing the restoration petition is condoned; Second Appeal No. 620 of 2009 is restored and matter posted for further proceedings.
What the court decided
C.M.P. No. 13556 of 2023
in
S.A.No.620 of 2009
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 1413 in filing the restoration petition for the above SA No. 620 of 2009.
- The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed for non prosecution on 21.10.2019. Thereafter, the appellant could not able to contact his counsel owing to covid pandemic and his mother also died due to Covid. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the appellant was not able to file the petition to restore the second appeal on time. Hence, he seeks to condone the delay of 1413 in filing the restoration petition for the above SA No. 620 of 2009.
- Considering the facts and circumstances, and the reasons stated by the petitioner in the affidavit is justifiable one. Accordingly, SA No. 620 of 2009 is ordered to be restored. Thus, this petition is ordered. Post the matter on 28.08.2024.
13.08.2024
pbl
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to condone the delay of 1413 days in filing a restoration petition for Second Appeal No. 620 of 2009.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Appellant
- respondent
Respondent
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