ARUNA JAGADEESAN
Tmt. Muthammal – Appellant
Versus
Gurunathan and others – Respondent
1. By consent of both the counsel, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 502 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, has filed the said suit for partition of her 1/10th share in the suit properties. The suit has been dismissed on 20.9.1990 for non-payment of batta. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.86 of 1995 for condoning the delay of 982 days in filing the petition for restoration of the suit stating that the suit was pending at Melur and she engaged the counsel at Madurai and the counsel has failed to take care of the matter. Thereafter, she came to know about the same and the counsel at Madurai entrusted the matter to the local counsel. Now the jurisdiction lies within the District Munsif Court.
3. The respondents have filed a counter stating that even though enough opportunities have been given for the plaintiff to pay the batta, still the batta has not been paid and the suit has been dismissed for default. Hence, there is no sufficient cause for restoration of the suit as well as the application for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the petition fo
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.