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

2021 Supreme(Mad) 61

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
R. Badrayyan – Appellant
Versus
T. S. Rajendran – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :C.R. Prasanan, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: CMP No.13806 of 2017 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1,453 days in filing the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

CMA SR No.90140 of 2016 is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.48 of 2011 passed by the Learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore dated 31.08.2012 by remanding the matter back after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Learned II Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore in O.S.No.606 of 2005 dated 22.12.2010.

Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. Law of limitation is substantive. Litigations/appeals are expected to be filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under the Statutes. Rule is to follow limitation. Condonation of delay is an exception. Exceptions are to be exercised discreetly, if the reasons furnished are genuine and acceptable. The Courts are vested with the discretion to condone the delay. This does not mean that enormous delay are to be condoned mechanically. Undoubtedly, if the reasons are candid and convincing, then the Courts are empowered to exercise its power of discretion so as to condone the delay. Power of discretion is a doub

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