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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 628

V.KANAGARAJ
Edwin Alex – Appellant
Versus
Syndicate Bank, Karingal Branch rep. by its Branch Manager – Respondent


Advocates:
A. Chandrasekaran for Mr.R.S. Ramanathan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Judgment :

1. The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 11. 1995 made in E.A. No. 78 of 1993 in E.P. No. 28 of 1987 in O.S. No. 78 of 1976 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, thereby allowing an application filed by the respondent under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 265 days caused in filing the petition to restore the Execution Petition dismissed for default.

2. A glance at the affidavit filed in support of the petition reveals that on behalf of the petitioner before the Execution Court, the Syndicate Bank, Karingal Branch, represented by its Branch Manager, it would be contended that the above Execution Petition was posted for arguments after many hearings and on 24. 1992, when it was called, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and hence the said Execution Petition was dismissed for default, about which the petitioner came to know only on 1. 1993 through the Advocates Clerk and as such a delay of 265 days in filing the petition to restore the said Execution Petition has become inevitable; that on account of family problems, their Advocate was not able to attend to the








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