S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
Chitrakala – Appellant
Versus
Sathyanarayanan – Respondent
ORDER :
The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 1177 days in filing the First Appeal, challenging the order dated 30.09.2016 made in O.S.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur @ Poonamalle.
2. The reason stated by the petitioner is that her husband was ill and he requires consistent medical attention. Thus, the petitioner was not in a position to contact her counsel and file the appeal suit. Further, it is stated that the learned counsel, who handled her case had fallen ill and therefore, she had to consult another lawyer for filing an appeal. However, such reasons are not substantiated and the petitioner has not filed any document or evidence to establish the said facts.
3. Merely stating certain reasons in the affidavit would be insufficient to condone the enormous delay in filing the appeal suit. No doubt, the Courts can take a lenient view in respect of meagre delay and if the delay is longer, then the reasons must be sufficient enough to condone the delay and the Courts are not expected to condone the long delay in a routine manner.
4. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner by the Courts. Filing of a s
M.K. Prasad Versus P. Arumugam
Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Sahu & Others Versus Gobardhan Sap & Others
Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat
C. Subraniam Versus Tamil Nadu Housing Board rep. by its Chairman And Managing Director
Kandaswamy and four others vs. Krishnamandiram Trust, Karur, by its Trustees and 33 others
Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and another
Ramlal and others vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.
N. Balakrishnan Versus M. Krishnamurthy
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.