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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 176

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Muthulakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Thenammal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :S. Sankar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:T. Vadivelan, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 320 days in filing the Review Petition against judgment and decree in S.A.No.2055 of 2002, dated 25.10.2018 passed by this Court.

Review Application filed under Section 47 Rule 1 CPC to set aside the judgment, dated 25.10.2018 made in S.A.No.2055 of 2002 on the file of this Court.

1. Petition filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by the 2nd respondent in S.A. No. 2055 of 2002 to condone the delay of 320 days in filing Review Petition against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2018 in S.A. No. 2055 of 2002.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner, Muthulakshmi claimed that a copy of the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2018 in S.A. No. 2055 of 2002 was furnished by her advocate only in the month of February 2020. She further stated that owing to the Covid 19 pandemic situation, she was not able to file the Review Petition. She further stated that taking advantage of the judgment, the respondents are taking steps to alienate the suit schedule property. She claimed that she has a prima facie case. She therefore sought condonation of the delay of 320 day

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