Allowed

Ayisha Parveen v. Abdul Kaleel

Madras HC2 Dec 2025CMP/20577/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to condone a 95-day delay in filing a first appeal against an ex parte dismissal by the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai. The Court held the appeal is an extension of trial procedure and the appellant deserved a hearing on merits, and condoned the delay.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 95 days in filing the first appeal condoned; CMP allowed and appeal directed to be numbered if otherwise in order.

Ayisha Parveen Vs Abdul Kaleel — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CMP No. 20577 of 2025

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶7

CMP No. 20577 of 2025 AND

¶8

AS SR NO. 112890 OF 2025

Ayisha Parveen

Appellant(s)

Abdul Kaleel

Respondent(s)

AS SR No. 112890 of 2025

Ayisha Parveen

Appellant(s)

Abdul Kaleel

Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s): Mr.J.P.Rajesh

¶21

For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Jesus Moris Ravi

¶22

ORDER

¶23

1/6

¶24

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

¶25

CMP No. 20577 of 2025

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

¶27

The application has been filed, seeking to condone the delay of 95 days in

¶28

filing the first appeal.

¶29

The first appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the VI

¶30

Additional Family Court, Chennai dated 27.11.2024 in O.S.No.51 of 2022,

¶31

wherein the defendant remained ex parte . After hearing the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed. The first appeal being an extension of the trial procedure, it is only appropriate that the appellant is granted an opportunity on the merits of the appeal.

¶32

Notice had been directed to the respondent and the same has been

¶33

served. The learned counsel for the respondent had also entered appearance.

¶34

The learned counsel for the respondent states that the papers had not

¶35

been served.

¶36

2/6

¶37

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

¶38

CMP No. 20577 of 2025

¶39

From the records, we are of the opinion that the opportunity has to be

¶40

granted to be heard again and of course, to the respondent also.

¶41

Taking all factors into consideration, the delay of 95 days stands

¶42

condoned and C.M.P.No.20577 of 2025 in A.S.SR.No.112890 of 2025 is

¶43

ordered.

¶44

3/6

¶45

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

¶46

CMP No. 20577 of 2025

¶47

Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order.

¶48

(C.V.K., J.) (K.B., J.) 02-12-2025

¶49

kak

¶50

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶51

¶52

1.Abdul Kaleel S/o. Abdul Majeed, No. H.71/T3, Thiruvanmiyur Extension, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41.

¶53

4/6

¶54

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

¶55

CMP No. 20577 of 2025

¶56

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶57

kak

¶58

CMP No. 20577 of 2025 in AS SR NO. 112890 OF 2025

¶59

5/6

¶60

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

¶61

CMP No. 20577 of 2025

¶62

02-12-2025

¶63

6/6

¶64

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

Ayisha Parveen v. Abdul Kaleel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayisha Parveen v. Abdul Kaleel

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

The Managing Director Vs Parimalam

The Managing Director Vs Mohan

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs M. Dhanam

Chinnaiyan Vs Kalaiselvi