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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 2536

K.VENKATARAMAN
Mahaeswaran – Appellant
Versus
Mariammal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. V. Chandrasekar, Advocate for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur dated 21.3.2003 made in I.A. No. 634 of 2002 in O.S. No. 971 of 1986.

2. The first respondent herein, who is the first plaintiff in the Suit, has filed I.A. No. 634 of 2002 before the District Munsif, Thanjavur to condone the delay of 2298 days in filing the final decree Petition. The said Application has been allowed by the Trial Judge on 21.3.2003. The same is under challenge in this Revision.

3. The first respondent has stated in her Application filed before the Trial Court that the Suit in O.S. No. 971 of 1986 was decreed on 3.11.1992 and she has filed an Application for passing final decree on 21.9.1993. Meanwhile, the petitioners/defendants filed a Petition in I.A. No. 1329 of 1993 praying to set aside the preliminary decree dated 3.11.1992. The said I.A. was allowed on payment of cost. Since the cost has not been paid, I.A. No. 1329 of 1993 was dismissed on 10.11.1994. Thereafter, another Application to restore I.A. No. 1329 of 1993 was filed with an Application to condone the delay of 101 days. Thereafter, according to the case of the first respondent, her son









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