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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 828

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Vellai @ Parthasarathy
Versus
Jollu @ Rajendran & Another
C.R.P.(NPD).No.100 of 2008 and M.P.No. 1 of 2008
Decided on : 26-03-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Hemalatha, Advocate.

The court's discretion to condone delay in representing an appeal is subject to the circumstances of the case and the interests of justice.

Headnote:

Delay Condonation - Civil Procedure - The court dismissed the revision petition against the order to condone the delay in representing an appeal, directing the lower court to dispose of the appeal within two months.

Fact of the Case:

The revision was filed against the order to condone a 712-day delay in representing an appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the revision petition and directed the lower court to dispose of the appeal within two months.

Issues: Delay condonation, numbering of appeal, cross-appeal

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that nothing survived in the revision petition due to the appeal being numbered and a cross-appeal being filed.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the lower court was directed to dispose of the appeal within two months.

Judgment

This Revision has been directed against the order passed in I.A.No.56 of 2006 in unnumbered A.S.No.-- of 2006 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar. To condone the delay of 712 days in representing unnumbered A.S.No.-- of 2006, I.A.No.56 of 2006 was filed. After considering the reasoning stated in the affidavit to the petition for condoning the delay, the first appellant Court / Subordinate Judge, Cheyarr had allowed the application on terms of Rs.200/- fixing the date for compliance.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents would state that the said unnumbered Appeal has been numbered as A.S.No.27 of 2007 and that the plaintiff has also filed cross-appeal in A.S.No.27 of 2007. A xerox copy of the cross-appeal has also been produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Under such circumstances, nothing survives in this Revision and the same hereby dismissed. The learned First Appellate Judge is directed to dispose of A.S.No.27 of 2007 within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.


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 Back to top