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

1958 Supreme(Mad) 35

BALAKRISHNA AYYAR
Velu Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Sevuga Perumal Pillai – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Arunachala Sastri, for Petitioner.
M. V. Ganapathi and M. V. Jagannath, for Respondent.

Order

On 19th June, 1956, the District Munsif of Tirumagalam passed an order holding that E.P. No. 297 of 1955 was barred by limitation and that the defendant was entitled to the refund of a sum of Rs. 7 which he had paid on 13th February, 1956. The decree-holder who seeks to canvass the correctness of this order in revision filed a petition which has been numbered as S.R. No. 17267. Under Rule 41-A (2) of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court, such a petition has to be presented within ninety days from the date of the order complained of. The same rule empowers the Court to excuse the delay where sufficient cause is shown to its satisfaction. In the present case there was a delay of 268 days in filing the petition. The only ground on the basis of which I am invited to excuse the delay is that the petitioner mislaid the bundle in his village. That, in my opinion, is not a sufficient reason for excusing the delay.

When I expressed this view, learned counsel for the petitioner put forward the contention that Rule 41-A (2) is ultra vires the rule-making powers of this Court and that he is entitled to come to this Court regardless of the ninety days specified in that rule. In support of











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