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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 437

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
Shanmuga Sadachara Servai – Appellant
Versus
Thirugnanam Servai – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Muthuramalingam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:C. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate.

Judgment

1. Shanmugha Sadachara Servai, the petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.31 of 1989 on the file of District Munsif, Kovilpatti. He filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. After trial, the said suit was dismissed. Though he instructed his lawyer to file an appeal after getting the copies of the judgment and decree, the copy application was not filed in time. Therefore, he engaged some other Lawyer to whom he instructed to file an appeal. In the process of filing the appeal, there was a delay of 94 days. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.530 of 1991 to condone the said delay under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 in the enquiry conducted on this application. The reasons for causing the delay of 94 days were given by P.W.1 in the deposition. He was also cross-examined. After consideration of the materials and submissions of the counsel for both the parties, the court of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin dismissed the petition on the ground that the details of the dates have not been clearly given either in the petition or in the deposition. This order is being challenged in this revision.

2















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