SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 969

M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Lingeswaran – Appellant
Versus
Thirunagalingam – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. K.V. Sriwas Narayanan, Mr. K.V. Vijayakumar.

ORDER :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai in C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 1688 and 1689 of 2019, by which the High Court has set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court condoning the huge delay of 467 days in preferring the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the original defendants have preferred the present special leave petitions.

2. We have heard Mr. K.V. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners at length.

3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the order passed by the learned trial Court by which the learned trial Court condoned the huge delay of 467 days.

4. Having gone through the order passed by the learned trial Court, even the learned trial Court also specifically observed that, in the absence of material evidence, it cannot be said that the delay has been explained. The trial Court has also observed that the Court feels that there are no merits in the application. Still the trial Court condoned the delay by observing that an opportunity of fair trial should be g


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top