Pichai v. Ponnaiyan
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court rejected the Petitioner's request to condone a 349-day delay in filing the first appeal. The Judge dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition due to the abnormal delay and the Respondent's knowledge of the decree's execution by the trial court.
What did the court decide?
The Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.) was dismissed.
What the court decided
C.M.P.No.15808 of 2024 in A.S.S.RNo.83390 of 2024
C.M.P.No.15808 of 2024 in A.S.S.RNo.83390 of 2024
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent vehemently objects to the filing
of the Petition to condone the delay of 349 days in filing the first Appeal.
- As per the counter filed by the Respondent, the Respondent is the decree holder. The suit was filed for specific performance of contract for sale which was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant in the suit has not filed any Appeal on time and also not come forward to execute the sale deed as per the decree within the time granted by the trial Court, the Plaintiff as decree holder has filed E.P.No.97 of 2023 in O.S.No.61 of 2020. Even after filing of the Execution Petition, the Respondent had not cooperated. Therefore, the learned Judge himself / herself had executed the sale deed and it is registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Vada Ponparappi as Document No.1200 of 2024. Under those circumstances, the learned Counsel for the Respondent vehemently objects to condone the delay.
1/3
C.M.P.No.15808 of 2024 in A.S.S.RNo.83390 of 2024
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 349 days in filing the first appeal should be condoned.
Whether the Petition to condone delay has merit considering the abnormal delay and notice of decree execution.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Petitioner
- respondent
Respondent
Coram
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court