Allowed

R.Vijayalakshmi v. P.Kunnudayan (Died) 1.K.Lakshman

Madras HC3 Jul 2025CMP(MD)/4949/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition by heirs condoned a 577-day delay in appealing a decree against them. The court accepted sickle cell/health reasons and a delay in getting judgment copies, allowing the appeal on condition of a deposit.

What did the court decide?

The petition to condone the 577-day delay in filing the appeal suit is allowed on condition of paying Rs.5,000 to the respondent No.1 to 7 within 15 days.

R.Vijayalakshmi Vs P.Kunnudayan (Died) 1.K.Lakshman — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CMP.(MD)No.4949 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :03.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

CMP.(MD)No.4949 of 2025 and A.S.(MD).SR.No.95491 of 2024

¶7

1.R.Vijayalakshmi 2.R.Arun 3.R.Iswarya .. Petitioners Vs.

¶8

P.Kunnudayan (Died)

¶9

1.K.Lakshman 2.K.Jayapaul 3.R.Leena 4.Y.Saraswathi 5.K.Pradeep 6.B.Adilakshmi 7.The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Nangawaram Branch, East Street, Nangawaram, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District. .. Respondents

¶10

1/5

¶11

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

¶12

CMP.(MD)No.4949 of 2025

¶13

Prayer : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 577 days in filing the present appeal suit as against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.188 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli dated 20.02.2023.

¶14

For Petitioners : M/s.B.Saravanan Associates D.Kirubakaran

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.L.R. Karthick Babu for R1 to R6 : Mr.K.Hemantha Kumar for R7

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 577 days in filing the present Appeal suit as againt the judgment and decree in O.S.No.188 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli date 20.02.2018.

¶18

2.The defendant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S.No.188 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli have filed this appeal suit with delay of 577 days.

¶19

3.The respondent Nos.1 to 7 have filed the suit for recovery of the amount against the appellant herein and the same was decreed by the impugned judgment

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

CMP.(MD)No.4949 of 2025

¶23

dated 20.02.2023. The petitioner herein has applied for the certified copy and the said copy was made ready only on 21.11.2023. Due to petitioner's health condition, he has not preferred the appeal suit within the time limit. In paragraph No.8 of the affidavit, he has clearly stated about his health issues and also his inability to generate the fund, which reads as follows:

¶24

8.I further respectfully submit that immediately, after the suit was decreed by the impugned judgment and decree in O.S.No.188 of 2018 on the file of the principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli dated 20.02.2023, I applied for a copy of the impugned judgment and decree in copy application No.2330/2023 on 22.02.2023. Thereafter, unfortunately I suffered from jaundice and I had to undergo treatment through traditional medicines which hampered me from following up with the aforesaid suti proceedings. Subsequently, after I recovered from my ailments, due to some unavoidable family commitments, there is a considerable delay in preferring the present appeal which is neither willful nor wanton. Thereafter, I approached my counsel and explained the above and once again, I applied for a copy of the impugned judgment and decree on 04.11.2024 and the same was delivered on 26.11.2024

¶25

4.The said allegation was not specifically disputed by the respondent in their counter.

¶26

3/5

¶27

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

¶28

CMP.(MD)No.4949 of 2025

¶29

5.This Court perused the counter affidavit, there was no specific denial about

¶30

the same and being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit, this petition is allowed. The delay of delay of 577 days in preferring an Appeal Suit against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in O.S.No.188 of 2018 vide judgment dated 20.02.2023 is condoned on condition to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 7 within a period of 15 (Fifteen day) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

6.List this case on 25.07.2025 for reporting complaince.

sd/-

03/07/2025

/ TRUE COPY /

/07/2025

Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶37

SBN

¶38

¶39

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TRICHIRAPALLI.

¶40

4/5

¶41

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

¶42

CMP.(MD)No.4949 of 2025

¶43

+1 CC to M/s.B.SARAVANAN ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-7127[I] dated 04/07/2025 )

¶44

ORDER IN CMP.(MD)No.4949 of 2025 and A.S.(MD).SR.No.95491 of 2024 Date :03/07/2025

¶45

PR/09.07 .2025 5P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶46

5/5

¶47

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

R.Vijayalakshmi v. P.Kunnudayan (Died) 1.K.Lakshman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Vijayalakshmi v. P.Kunnudayan (Died) 1.K.Lakshman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Abdul kapoor (Died), 1) a.Suriya Begam, Vs Kumaran Financiers

Rajkumar Vs Ramya

Vijayalakshmi @ Sindhuja Vs R.Siranjeevikumar @ Gowtham

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Mahalakshmi

Somasundarapandian Vs Petchiammal

1. Veluchamy Devar (Died), 2. Umaiyakunjaram, Vs 1. Villayudha Devar (Died), 2. Malaipandi