Singaravelu v. Selvaraj
Case brief
What is this about?
Petition to condone 92 days' delay in representing a second appeal. Court found the affidavit averments and counsel submissions satisfactory, condoned the delay, allowed the petition, and directed the Registry to list the appeal on numbering.
What did the court decide?
Delay of 92 days in representing SA SR No. 67444 of 2024 condoned; appeal to be listed after numbering.
What the court decided
1
CMP NO. 29046 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-12-2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
CMP NO. 29046 of 2024
AND
SA SR NO. 67444 OF 2024
SINGARAVELU S/o. Dharmalinga Mudaliyar, Gundiyanthandalam Village, Vembakkam, Taluk, Tiruvannamalai Dist.
Appellant(s)
Vs
SELVARAJ S/o. Dharmalinga Mudaliyar, Gundiyanthandalam Village, Vembakkam, Taluk, Tiruvannamalai Dist. and 3 Others
Respondent(s)
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the 92-day delay in representing the Second Appeal should be condoned?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Singaravelu S/o. Dharmalinga Mudaliyar
- respondent
Selvaraj S/o. Dharmalinga Mudaliyar
- respondent
District Collector, Tiruvannamalai
- respondent
Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar
- respondent
Tahsildar, Vembakkam
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court