S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
Dhanabal – Respondent
ORDER :
The delay of 1557 days is sought to be condoned in the present civil miscellaneous petition in filing the Appeal Suit. The Appeal Suit was filed against the judgment and decree passed in the O.S.No.185 of 2014 dated 16.11.2017.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Trial Court one Mr. K. Dharmalingham died on 17.12.2020 and therefore, the petitioner is unable to file an Appeal before the Court at Chennai. It is further contended that the said lawyer had not informed about the filing of an Appeal in spite of the fact that the petitioner instructed the counsel to file an Appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the said reason by stating that the respondents filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.520 of 2018 against the very same judgment and decree in O.S.No.185 of 2014 and the said Appeal Suit, the petitioner herein has already engaged a lawyer, who in turn appeared on behalf of the petitioner. While so, the very reason stated that the lawyer has not informed regarding filing of the Appeal to the petitioner is incorrect and therefore, the reason is false.
4. Flimsy reasons c
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 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.