Allowed

R.Kalaivani v. Savithiriyamma

Madras HC14 Oct 2024CMP/22136/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to condone 666 days' delay in representing a second appeal, attributed to change of counsel and loss of documents. The court allowed the petition on payment of Rs.1000 cost to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and directed numbering of the second appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 666 days condoned subject to Rs.1000 cost to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority; Registry directed to number the second appeal if in order.

R.Kalaivani Vs Savithiriyamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.P.No. 22136 of 2024 in S.A. SR.No. 68373 of 2022

¶2

C.M.P.No.22136 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No. 68373 of 2022

¶3

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶4

Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.34 of 2019, the petitioner preferred the above Second Appeal, however there is a delay of 666 days in representing the above second appeal arose. Hence, the present petition has been filed to condone the delay in representing the second appeal.

¶5

Mr.V.Achuthanandan, learned counsel for petitioner submitted

¶6

that the above Second Appeal was returned for rectifying certain defects on

¶7

18.07.2022. In the meanwhile, due to misunderstanding and noncooperation, the petitioner had changed the counsel. Hence, there is a delay in getting papers and change of vakalat from the earlier counsel to proceed further in the case. Accordingly, the second appeal was represented by the

¶8

present counsel on 01.04.2024 by filing change of vakalat and again it was returned on 23.05.2024 for complying certain defects. Furthermore, the

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/3

¶10

C.M.P.No.22136 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No. 68373 of 2022

¶11

petitioner did not have necessary documents, which were lost while getting back the papers from the previous counsel. Therefore, there is a delay of 666 days arose in representing the above second appeal and the said delay caused is neither willful nor wanton, but for the above said reasons. Accordingly, he has filed the above petition.

¶12

On perusal of records, it reveals that the petitioner's earlier counsel failed to follow the procedures and on change of vakalat, this petition was filed and also due to lack of communication, it was not represented within a stipulated time. Hence, in order to give one more opportunity to the petitioner, this court is inclined to allow this petition on condition that the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.1000/- payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such deposit, Registry is directed to number the above Second Appeal if it is otherwise found to be in order and post the matter on 24.10.2024.

¶13

rpp

¶14

14.10.2024

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/3

¶16

C.M.P.No.22136 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No. 68373 of 2022

¶17

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶18

rpp

¶19

C.M.P.No. 22136 of 2024 in S.A. SR.No. 68373 of 2022

¶20

14.10.2024

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/3

R.Kalaivani v. Savithiriyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kalaivani v. Savithiriyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Vs M.S.Manickavelu

S.L.Srinivasan Vs M.Vijay Kumar

Paramanandham Vs Murugan

Alexander Vs a. Mariaselvam

Arumuga Pillai Vs Ponnuswamy

Sekar Vs 1.JOthy deceased