Allowed

S.Chinnasamy v. M.Palanisamy (Died) 1. Sarojini

Madras HC8 Nov 2024CMP/7119/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to condone an 84-day delay in filing a second appeal against a decree partly modifying the trial court's judgment. Delay attributed to unavailability of certified copies and illness. Objections of the respondents were overruled and the delay was condoned.

What did the court decide?

84-day delay in filing second appeal condoned; Registry directed to number the S.A. if in order and list it on 20.11.2024.

S.Chinnasamy Vs M.Palanisamy (Died) 1. Sarojini — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.P. No. 7119 of 2024

¶2

¶3

S.A.SR.No.788 of 2024

¶4

C.M.P. No. 7119 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.788 of 2024

¶5

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶6

This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 84 days in filing the above Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2023 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2018, on the file of I Addl. District and Session Court at Tiruppur partly modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.201 of 2011 dated 30.01.2018 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Tiruppur.

¶7

Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for appellant submitted that as

¶8

the certified copies of judgment and decree passed by the courts below was not available, the same was obtained and thereafter, due to illness as well as

¶9

due to lack of communication, the appellant was not able to contact his

¶10

counsel and only during the last week of December 2023, he gave instructions to file the Second Appeal. However, there is a delay of 84 days in filing the above second appeal arose, which is neither willful nor wanton. Therefore, he filed this petition to condone the delay in filing the above second appeal.

¶11

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

¶12

C.M.P. No. 7119 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.788 of 2024

¶13

Mr. Singaravelu Balaraman, learned counsel for respondents

¶14

appeared and raised strong objections in allowing this petition stating that there is no sufficient cause given for the said delay.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances, and the reasons stated by

¶16

the petitioner in the affidavit seems to be justifiable one and to give one more opportunity, this court is inclined to allow this petition. Registry is directed to number the Second Appeal if it is otherwise found to be in order and also directed to print the name of Mr.Singaravelu Balaraman in the cause list and post the matter on 20.11.2024.

¶17

08.11.2024

¶18

rpp

¶19

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

¶20

C.M.P. No. 7119 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.788 of 2024

¶21

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶22

rpp

¶23

C.M.P.No. 7119 of 2024 in S.A.SR.. No. 788 of 2024

¶24

08.11.2024

¶25

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

S.Chinnasamy v. M.Palanisamy (Died) 1. Sarojini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Chinnasamy v. M.Palanisamy (Died) 1. Sarojini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinnaraj Vs Parvathi

M/S.Blessing Homes and Infra Pvt. Ltd., Vs A2S Supply

Sadhamushen Vs the State Represented by

M.Rathinavel (Died), 1.M.Ponvel Vs Sivaji

Kumaravel Vs the Commissioner

Haridoss Reddiar Vs Rajasekar Reddiar