Revision against dismissal of a condone delay application for re-presentation of a partition appeal memo delayed 1294 days. The High Court found the explanation inadequate and no infirmity in the order below.
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.
C.R.P.No.3090 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.02.2024
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.R.P. No.3090 of 2022 and C.M.P.Nos.16608, 18395, 18396, 18398, 18405, 18406 and 18407 of 2022
Vs.
Jayamma(Died)
Page NO:1/6
C.R.P.No.3090 of 2022
12.Babureddy
13.Sekarreddy
14.Nalini 15.Jayamma 16.Shanthamma 17.Babureddy 18. Manohar Reddy 19.Nanjamma 20. Ramesh Reddy 21.Veera Reddy 22.Umesh Reddy Kushal Raj (died) 23.Yallah Reddy 24.S.lavanya (Legal heir of Jayamma/1st Plaintiff)
26.Sweety Devi (Legal heir of Kushal Raj) 27.Vipior Bokadia
28.Shalini Bokadia (Legal heir of Sweety Devi)
... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code praying against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.04.2022 made in I.A.No.27 of 2018 in unnumbered A.S. on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.N.Manoharan for R1 and R24
Mr.M.Mariappan for R2 Mr.P.Mani for R10 Mr.C.Munusamy for R29 No appearance for other respondents
Page NO:2/6
C.R.P.No.3090 of 2022
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 28.04.2022 passed in I.A.No.27 of 2018 in unnumbered A.S. on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri for dismissing the condone delay application.
Page NO:3/6
C.R.P.No.3090 of 2022
petition with a view to protract the proceedings. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge, dismissing the said condone delay petition, is in order.
respondents and perused the materials available on record.
Page NO:4/6
C.R.P.No.3090 of 2022
been given by the petitioners for condonation of such inordinate delay and thereby, the learned Judge, has rightly dismissed the petition seeking to condone the delay of 1294 days. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judge, warranting interference of this Court.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
27.02.2024
msv To The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri
Page NO:5/6
C.R.P.No.3090 of 2022
J.NISHA BANU,J.
msv
C.R.P. No.3090 of 2022 and C.M.P.Nos.16608, 18395, 18396, 18398, 18405, 18406 and 18407 of 2022
27.02.2024
Page NO:6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Should the delay of 1294 days in re-presenting the memorandum of appeal be condoned, and was the lower court's dismissal of the condone delay application correct?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijayarani
Mahendrakumar
Sumalatha
Sathyaprema
Venkatasamy Reddy
Malligamma
J.Nisha Banu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
