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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 1460

S.MANIKUMAR
Anthonysamy – Appellant
Versus
Christoraj – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Thirupathiraj, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.20 of 2012 dated 25.09.2012 in A.S.No.11 of 2011 filed under Order 41 Rule 3 CPC and under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiff has filed the Civil Revision Petition. Provision, Order 41 Rule 3, CPC is extracted hereunder.

"Rejection or amendment of memorandum— (1) Where the memorandum of appeal is not drawn up in the manner hereinbefore prescribed, it may be rejected, or be returned to the appellant for the purpose of being amended within a time to be fixed by the Court or be amended then and there.

(2) Where the Court rejects any memorandum, it shall record the reasons for such rejection.

(3) Where a memorandum of appeal is amended, the Judge, or such officer as he appoints in this behalf, shall sign or initial the amendment.

[3A. Application for condonation of delay— (1) When a appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefor, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.

(2) If the Court sees no reason to reject the app




























































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