Single-judge order condoning a delay of 1029 days in filing a restore petition under S.A.No.1261 of 2006. The court allowed the condonation based on the affidavit filed by the petitioners, noting the underlying suit was for partition filed in 2003.
Delay of 1029 days in filing the restore petition is condoned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-12-2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
CMP NO. 19037 of 2022 in S.A.No.1261 of 2006
MARIAMMAL (DIED)
APPELLANT(S)
Vs
V. NALLAMUTHU @ URUMA NAICKER (DIED) 1.N.RANJITH KUMAR SON OF LATE V.NALLAMUTHU @ URUMA NAICKER, DOOR NO.30/116, PAPPATHIKADU, 1ST STREET, MUNICIPAL COLONY, ERODE 638004
RESPONDENT(S)
For Petitioners : M/s.V.Srimathy For R1 & R2 : Mr.J.Titus Knock
ORDER
This petition is filed to condone the delay of 1029 days in filing the restore petition in S.A.No.1261 of 2006.
2
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
msrm
16.12.2024 msrm
C.M.P.No.19037 of 2022 and S.A.No.1261 of 2006 (½)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone a delay of 1029 days in filing a restore petition.
Whether the reasons stated in the affidavit justify condonation of delay.
MARIAMMAL (DIED)
V. NALLAMUTHU @ URUMA NAICKER (DIED)
1.N.RANJITH KUMAR
T.V.THAMILSELVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
