This court dismissed a petition seeking condonation of a 3521-day delay in filing a second appeal in a property dispute, holding that the reasons provided were unjustifiable and the delay was not properly explained.
No opportunity was granted to file the delayed second appeal; the petition to condone delay was dismissed.
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.
C.M.P. No. 21684 of 2019 in
S.A.SR.No.51955 of 2011
C.M.P. No.21684 of 2019 in S.A.SR.No.51955 of 2011
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 3521 days in filing the above Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2001 passed in A.S.No.73 of 1998, on the file of Sub-Court at Kallakurichi reversing the judgment and decree passed in I.A.No.2000 of 1996 in O.S.No.965 of 1989 dated 12.06.1998 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.
C.M.P. No.21684 of 2019 in S.A.SR.No.51955 of 2011
came to know that the appeal was not filed and immediately taken steps to proceed with the case. Accordingly, he filed this petition to condone the delay in filing the above second appeal.
C.M.P. No.21684 of 2019 in S.A.SR.No.51955 of 2011
25.10.2024
rpp
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
C.M.P.No. 21684 of 2019
in S.A.SR.. No. 51955 of 2011
25.10.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the condonation of delay petition should be allowed given the unexplained delay of 3521 days in filing second appeal.
Whether the reasons for delay stated in the affidavit constitute a sufficient explanation for the lapse of time.
Applicants
Respondents 2 and 3
T.V. THAMILSELVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
