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

1995 Supreme(Mad) 915

SRINIVASAN, S.S.SUBRAMANI
Shoba Viswanathan – Appellant
Versus
D. P. Kingsley – Respondent


Advocates:
V.S. Subramanian, for M/s. Aiyar & Delia, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. K. Bijaisundar, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :-

Srinivasan, J.

This petition for condonation of delay of 135 days in filing the appeal is posted before us on our direction given yesterday when C.M.P.No. 12907 of 1995 for fixing a date for hearing the O.S. Appeal was posted before us. We were informed that this petition was pending. We find now that in the petition for condonation of delay, while ordering notice, the Division Bench directed that petition to be posted along with the appeal for hearing. Thus, the registry numbered the appeal. When the petition was posted again after some time, the Bench passed the following order:-

“Wrongly posted. Post long with the appeal.”

2. Obviously, the Bench was under the impression that a petition to condone the delay could be disposed of long with the main appeal. In our opinion, the said view is erroneous. It is settled law that unless the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the same cannot be taken on file. Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. The language of the Section is mandatory. Hence, the Cour






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