Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., Madras
Versus
Mrs. Stella CoilPillai Nazeresh, irunelveli District and 3 others
C.M.P. No. 6068 of 2000 and C.R.P. No. 21647 of 2000
Decided on : 26-04-2000
Delay Condonation - Revision Petition - The court found that there was no delay in filing the revision petition as the certified copy of the order of the appellate authority was not produced initially, and the delay was due to curing the defects in the already filed revision.
Fact of the Case:
The application was filed to condone the delay of 30 days in filing the revision petition. The revision itself was filed within the time limit, but the certified copy of the order of the appellate authority was not initially produced.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no delay at all in filing the revision petition, and the defects were dismissed as unnecessary.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the revision petition should be condoned due to the late production of the appellate authority's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no delay in filing the revision petition as the delay was caused by curing the defects in the already filed revision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defects as unnecessary and scheduled the revision petition for a later date.
1. It is an application filed to condone the delay of 30 days in filing this revision petition. The application for condoning the delay has been filed on 24.4.2000.
2. On going through the records, I find the revision itself was filed on 20.3.2000, within the time limit. Since certified copy of the order of the appellate authority was not produced, the appeal seems to have been returned by the Registry for representation and thereafter, order of the appellate authority was produced.
3. It is for the late production of appellate authority’s order, petitioner wants the delay to be condoned. Taking into consideration the facts, I feel that whatever the petitioner had done was to cure the defects in a revision which had already been filed. Hence, there is no question of excusing the delay caused by the petitioner in filing the revision.
4. I holdthat there is no delay at all in filing the revision petition. Therefore, the above defects is dismissed as unnecessary. Post the revision petition on 26.4.2000.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
