Allowed

Alexander v. a. Mariaselvam

Madras HC23 Sept 2024CMP/7398/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a condonation petition for a 537-day delay in filing a Second Appeal. Despite respondent objections regarding false statements about counsel changes, the court accepted the petitioner's affidavit and directed payment of costs before condoning the delay. The appeal is to be listed for formal orders.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 537 days in filing the Second Appeal is condoned upon payment of Rs. 5,000/- costs to the respondent.

Alexander Vs a. Mariaselvam — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMP.No.7398 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.37647 of 2024

¶2

CMP.No.20117 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.37647 of 2024

¶3

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶4

This Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 537 days in filling the above S.A.SR.No.37647 of 2024.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for

¶6

the respondent and perused the material available in the record.

¶7

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the previous counsel, who handled the case, did not file the Second Appeal within the stipulated time. Later, upon realizing the delay, he filed a petition to condone the delay.

¶8

The learned counsel for the respondent raised objections, stating

¶9

that the reason provided by the petitioner was false. He pointed out that the petitioner's own affidavit showed that the counsel who appeared for the

¶10

1\4

¶11

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

¶12

CMP.No.20117 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.37647 of 2024

¶13

appellant before the lower appellate court, Mr. Dhilipan, had applied for a certified copy on 21.12.2003. Following this, the appeal was filed. Therefore, there was no change of counsel, nor was the certified copy applied for by new counsel. Hence, he raised strong objections.

¶14

In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that another counsel had verified the records and obtained certified copies, based on instructions received from the previous counsel.

¶15

Upon review, it is evident that the delay was caused by a lack of communication from the counsel. While the objections raised by the respondent were considered, this Court has also taken into account the reply provided by the petitioner.

¶16

On being satisfied with the averments stated in the affidavit filed in

¶17

support of the petition and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, this Court is inclined to condone the delay, with costs. The petitioner is directed to pay a

¶18

2\4

¶19

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

¶20

CMP.No.20117 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.37647 of 2024

¶21

sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to the contesting respondent, within a period of one week from today and on such payment the delay of 537 days in filling the above S.A.SR.No.37647 of 2024 is condoned.

¶22

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶23

Registry is directed to list the above Second Appeal after

¶24

numbering the same, if they are otherwise in order, on 01.10.2024.

23.09.2024

rri

3\4

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

¶29

CMP.No.20117 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.37647 of 2024

¶30

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶31

rri

¶32

CMP.No.7398 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.37647 of 2024

¶33

23.09.2024

¶34

4\4

¶35

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

Alexander v. a. Mariaselvam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alexander v. a. Mariaselvam

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

Minor Selvakumar, Vs Thangavel MUDALIYAR,(DIED)1.PALANIVEL

Vadivel Padayachi Vs Kaliaperumal

Gajendran Vs Yasodha

R. Dravidamani Vs M. Abdul Wahid

Tamilselvan Vs Tamilselvi

K. Ravikumar Vs D.Tamilarasi