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

2005 Supreme(Mad) 1832

R.BANUMATHI
A. Muthusamy – Appellant
Versus
Muniammal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. M.M. Sundaresh, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. N. Manokaran, Advocate for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. This revision is preferred against the order dated 6.1.2005, passed in I.A. No. 401/2004 in unnumbered A.S.C.F.R. No. 14873/2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, dismissing the petition and declining to condone the delay of 477 days in representing the appeal. Defendant is the Revision Petitioner.

2. The Revision Petitioner/Defendant is the son of the first Respondent. Respondents 2 to 4 are the sisters of the Revision Petitioner. The suit was filed by the Respondent in O.S. No. 70/1997 for partition which was decreed on 15.7.2002. The Revision Petitioner preferred an Appeal on 11.4.2003, which was returned on 21.4.2003 and the case was not represented within the stipulated time.

3. TheRevision Petitioner has filed I.A. No. 401/2004 praying condonation of delay of 477 days in representing the appeal. According to the Revision Petitioner, he has been conducting business in several towns on commission basis and that he could not meet his counsel to give instructions in proceeding with the appeal. It is further stated that the Petitioner has been taking steps to settle the matter with his mother and sister but the settlement failed. When he met his coun
















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