Ranjithammal v. D.Rani

Madras HC17 Mar 2025CMP/1586/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 335 days; second appeal; SA.SR.No.4103 of 2019; CMP No. 1586 of 2019; Madras High Court; T.V. Thamilselvi J.; 17-03-2025; delay due to lower court counsel's belated copy application; decree not obtained in time; objection that delay exceeded 400 days; costs Rs.3,000 to contesting respondents 4 to 9; payment within two weeks; Registry to number and list appeal on 08.04.2025; Arakkonam; Vellore district; R2 and R3 died; batta due R10 and R11.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 335-day delay in filing SA.SR.No.4103 of 2019, conditional on payment of Rs.3,000/- costs to contesting respondents 4 to 9 within two weeks from the date of the order; Registry to number and list the Second Appeal on 08.04.2025 if otherwise in order. ¶¶34

Ranjithammal Vs D.Rani — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 335 days in filing SA.SR.No.4103 of 2019 ought to be condoned. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

Accepting the explanation for the delay, the Court was inclined to condone the 335-day delay in filing SA.SR.No.4103 of 2019, subject to costs.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners/appellants were directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the contesting respondents 4 to 9.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

The costs were to be paid within two weeks from the date of the order; on such payment, the delay of 335 days in filing SA.SR.No.4103 of 2019 stands condoned.ratio¶¶31
The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.ratio¶¶34
The Registry was directed to list the Second Appeal after numbering it, if otherwise in order, on 08.04.2025.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (T.V. Thamilselvi, J.), CMP No. 1586 of 2019 in SA.SR.No.4103 of 2019, decided 17-03-2025: Petition seeking condonation of a 335-day delay in filing Second Appeal SR No. 4103 of 2019. The appellants explained the delay as arising from lack of communication from their lower court counsel, who had applied for the copy application belatedly, so the decree of the appeal could not be obtained in time. Contesting respondents 4 to 9 objected that the period of delay was not calculated correctly and amounted to more than 400 days. The Court condoned the delay subject to costs, directing the petitioners/appellants to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to contesting respondents 4 to 9 within two weeks from the date of the order; on such payment the delay of 335 days stands condoned. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed and the Registry directed to number and list the Second Appeal on 08.04.2025 if otherwise in order. Cause title records R2 and R3 as died and batta due for R10 and R11.

¶1

¶2

CMP NO. 1586 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-03-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CMP NO. 1586 of 2019

¶7

¶8

SA.SR.No.4103 of 2019

¶9

RANJITHAMMAL

¶10

W/o Late Chinnadurai, Both Residing At Mariamman Koil St., Melpakkam Colony, Pathirputhur Post, Arakkonam and another

Appellant(s)

D.Rani

All Are Residing At Ocheri Road, Melpakkam Colony, Parthipudur Post, Arakkonam Tk, Vellore Dt. and 10 Others

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellant(s): M/s.J.Shanmuga Sundara Babu

¶17

For Respondent(s):

¶18

M/s.G.Jeremiah For Rr1 & 4 To 9 R2 And R3 - Died Batta Due R10 And R11

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 335 days in filling above SA.SR.No.4103 of 2019.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel

¶24

for the respondents. The material available on record has been perused.

¶25

3.The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9 raised strong objections,

¶26

stating that the period of delay was not calculated correctly and that it amounted to more than 400 days.

¶27

The petitioners responded that the delay was caused due to a lack of communication from the lower court counsel, who had applied for the copy application belatedly. As a result, the decree of the appeal could not be obtained in time.

¶28