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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.SOUNTHAR, J
M/s.Sree Dhaksha Property Developers (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Protect Coatings – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Ponraj

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Filing No.COS.No. 85 of 2025 filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking to condone the delay of 112 days in representing the returned plaint.

2. The plaint was submitted by the respondent seeking recovery of money against the petitioner. The plaint was returned on 12.02.2025 raising certain objections. The plaint was represented with a delay of 112 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, it was stated by the respondent/plaintiff that in order to address the queries raised in the returned plaint, the respondent/plaintiff had to obtain statement of accounts from the Banker and Certificate under Sections 61 to 63 BSA for email communications and in the said process, the delay had occurred. Having satisfied with the reason assigned in the affidavit, the Trial Court condoned the delay of 112 days in representing the returned plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/defendant has come before Court.

3. It is seen from the records the delay in representation of unnumbered plaint has been condoned by the Trial Court. B

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