Petition to condone a 32-day delay in filing a restore petition in a second appeal. The respondent raised no serious objection; the court found the affidavit reasons satisfactory and allowed the petition.
Delay of 32 days in filing the restore petition condoned; petition allowed.
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.
CMP. 8451 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-12-2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
CMP NO. 8451 of 2022 and SA NO. 439 OF 2017
CHINNATHAMBI @ PERUMAL S/O.DESAGOUNDER RES.AT MATTUKARANUR, ETTIKUTTAPPATTI VILLAGE AND POST, OMALUR TK, SALEM DIST.
APPELLANT(S)
Vs
KANNUPAIYAN S/O.PULLAIYANNAN MATTUKARANUR, ETTIKUTTAPPATTI VILLAGE AND POST, OMALUR TK, SALEM DIST.
RESPONDENT(S)
For Appellant(s):
Mr.M.Elango
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Jagadeesh
ORDER
The petition is filed to condone the delay of 32 days in filing
the restore petition.
2. Mr.P.Jagadeesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
did not raise any serious objection in allowing this petition.
3. Having satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit
1/2
CMP. 8451 of 2022
filed in support of the petition, the petition is allowed.
16-12-2024
To
1.KANNUPAIYAN S/O.PULLAIYANNAN MATTUKARANUR, ETTIKUTTAPPATTI VILLAGE AND POST, OMALUR TK, SALEM DIST.
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the 32-day delay in filing the restore petition should be condoned?
Chinnathambi @ Perumal s/o. Desagounder
Kannupaiyan s/o. Pullaiyannan
R. Hemalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
