Allowed

Ravi.v v. Bharathi Kamalanathan

Madras HC3 Mar 2025CMP/7257/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to condone a 164-day delay in filing a Second Appeal against a decree in A.S.No.05 of 2018. The court found the reasons justifiable, allowed the petition on condition of paying Rs.2,000 cost to the first respondent's counsel, and directed numbering of the Second Appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 164 days condoned on payment of Rs.2000 cost to first respondent's counsel; Registry to number the Second Appeal if otherwise in order.

Ravi.v Vs Bharathi Kamalanathan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.M.P. No. 7257 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.112631 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-03-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CMP No. 7257 of 2024 AND

¶7

SA SR NO. 112631 OF 2023

Ravi.V

Appellant(s)

Bharathi Kamalanathan

¶12

2.Girija

¶13

3.Shanthi

¶14

4.M.Latha

¶15

5.Suguna

¶16

6.Sureka

¶17

7.Subash

¶18

8.Sujatha

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

PRAYER

¶21

To condone the delay of 164 days in filing the Second Appeal in SASR No.112631 of 2023.

¶22

For Appellant(s): M/s.R. Chandramohan

¶23

For Respondent(s):

¶24

M/s. C.D.Sugumar for R1

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶26

ORDER

¶27

C.M.P. No. 7257 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.112631 of 2023

¶28

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 164 days in filing the above Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022 passed in A.S.No.05 of 2018, on the file of Addl. District Court at Arani modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.121 of 2012 dated 22.06.2017 on the file of Subordinate Court, Cheyyar.

¶29

Mr.R.Chandramohan, learned counsel for appellant submitted that as the deposition of P.W.1 and D.W.1 was not available, the same was obtained, due to which, the appellant was not able to come to Chennai and to engage his counsel. Only during the 3^rd week of August 2023, he gave instructions to file the Second Appeal. However, there is a delay of 164 days in filing the above second appeal arose, which is neither willful nor wanton. Therefore, he filed this petition to condone the delay in filing the above second appeal.

¶30

Mr. C.D.Sugumar, learned counsel for 1^st respondent appeared and raised strong objections stating that no sufficient reasons stated for the delay.

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances, and the reasons stated by the petitioner in the affidavit is justifiable one and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as well as to give one more opportunity, this court is inclined to

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶33

C.M.P. No. 7257 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.112631 of 2023

¶34

allow this petition on condition that the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.2000/- payable to the learned counsel for 1^st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such payment of cost, Registry is directed to number the Second Appeal if it is otherwise found to be in order and post the matter on 25.03.2025.

¶35

03.03.2025

¶36

rpp

¶37

N.B. : Issue order copy on 04.03.2025

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶39

C.M.P. No. 7257 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No.112631 of 2023

¶40

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶41

rpp

¶42

C.M.P.No. 7257 of 2024

¶43

in S.A.SR.. No. 112631 of 2023

¶44

03.03.2025

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Ravi.v v. Bharathi Kamalanathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi.v v. Bharathi Kamalanathan

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

M.Gnanasekaran Vs The Union of India Rep. by its

P Pachaiyammal(Deceased), 1. Kanniyappan Vs Viswapathiran (Deceased), 1. Ponnusamy

P Pachaiyammal(Deceased), 1. Kanniyappan Vs Viswapathiran(Deceased), 1. Ponnusamy

Velumani Vs Selvaraj

Loganathan Vs R.Pazhani

Sakthivel Vs Kathirvelu