Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
P.K.Vidhiyasagar – Appellant
Versus
S.Sathish – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal representation and procedural compliance in civil proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner’s need for relief despite procedural delays. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. conditions under which revisions are allowed. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
Heard Ms.R.Poornima, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Tamilvel, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking to set aside the order in I.A.No.1 of 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the trial court has exercised discretion judiciously and allowed the application subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/-. However, for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the cost could not be paid in time, which resulted in dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that opportunity may be given considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered an accident and even written statement has been filed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the very maintainability of the revision on the ground that the order was passed on 19.03.2024 and the petitioner applied for a copy only on 24.1
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
