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

1991 Supreme(Mad) 54

SRINIVASAN
Mohamed Ibrahim and others – Appellant
Versus
Chellammal – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:I.Mahaboob Sheriff, for Petitioners. M.Rathinam, for Respondent.

Judgment :-

No doubt the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in appeal filed by the respondent herein before the Subordinate Judge was a still-born the defendant in the suit was dead by the time the appeal was filed. In such cases, the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply. There is no question of bringing on record legal representatives as there was no valid appeal. The remedy of the appellant is to cause title amended, if it is within time to file the" appeal against the legal representatives. If it is out of time, the remedy is to apply for condonation of delay in filing the against the legal representatives.

2. In this case, an application to bring on record the legal representatives was filed respondent herein, as if the defendant was alive at the time of filing of the appeal. The below has accepted the explanation given by the respondent that she was not in town time of filing the appeal. According to her, she had provided her advocate with necessary funds for preferring the appeal even a few days prior to the date of filing the appeal and the place. It is her evidence that she came to know the death of the defendant only after return to the place and





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