Dismissed¶23

The Director of School Education v. N . M Parthiban

Madras HC11 Jul 2025CMP(MD)/7692/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 of Limitation Act; review application Rev.Aplc(MD).SR.No.39121 of 2025; delay of 100 days (prayer) / 101 days (order body); affidavit silent on reasons for delay; order in W.A.(MD).No.2544 of 2024 dated 16.12.2024; Director of School Education Chennai; Chief Educational Officer Tuticorin; District Educational Officer Kovilpatti; respondents N.M.Parthiban and Secretary, S.K.K.Hindu High School, Nagalapuram; counsel J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader; CMP dismissed; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; decision date 11.07.2025; M.S.RAMESH, J.; A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

What did the court decide?

The reason assigned for the delay in filing the review application was not spelt out in the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous petition. ¶22

The Director of School Education Vs N . M Parthiban — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.P.(MD).No.7692 of 2025 in Rev.Aplc(MD).SR.No.39121 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.07.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

C.M.P.(MD).No.7692 of 2025 in Rev.Aplc(MD).SR.No.39121 of 2025

¶7

1.The Director of School Education, Chennai.

¶8

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin.

¶9

3.The District Educational Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.N.M.Parthiban

2.The Secretary, S.K.K.Hindu High School, Nagalapuram, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 100 days in filing the above review application against the order passed in in W.A.(MD).No.2544 of 2024 dated 16.12.2024.

¶15

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

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

C.M.P.(MD).No.7692 of 2025 in Rev.Aplc(MD).SR.No.39121 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)

¶21

In the present petition, the petitioners seek for condonation of 100 days of delay in filing the review application.

¶22

2.The reason assigned, seeking for condonation of delay of 101 days in filing the review application, has not been spelt out in the affidavit filed in support of the present miscellaneous petition. In the absence of any specific reasons for the delay in preferring the review application, we are not inclined to condone the delay.

¶23

3.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

11/07/2025

// True Copy //

/ /2025 Sub Assistant Registrar (CS- I/ II / III / IV)

¶28

hvk