Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R.Vijayakumar, J
Muthuramu – Appellant
Versus
Muthulakshmi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case regarding dismissal and restoration of a suit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the reasons for delay. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on the credibility of the delay reasoning. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's ruling on condoning delay with imposed costs. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.116 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai are the revision petitioners herein.
2.The above said suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction not to disturb their possession. When the suit was posted for trial, due to non-appearance of the plaintiffs, it was dismissed for default on 08.02.2010. The restoration application was filed on 04.03.2010 and the same was returned for rectification of certain defects. However, the restoration application was represented with a delay of 1359 days to condone the delay in representation, I.A.No.84 of 2013 was filed. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
3.According to the revision petitioner, the restoration application was filed in time, but there was a delay in only representing the paper
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
