Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
Santhamani – Appellant
Versus
K.Nanjammal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the petitioners and their claims. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the delay in filing. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court observations on responsibility to defend. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. finding on the dismissal of delay application. (Para 9) |
| 5. final verdict of the court. (Para 10) |
ORDER
The revision petitioners are the defendants in OS.No.260 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Sathyamangalam, Erode.
2. An application in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 seeking condonation of delay of
3845 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree was sought to be condoned. The Trial Court dismissed the said application, after due inquiry, by order dated 05.02.2025. The said order is now under challenge in the present revision petition.
3. I have heard Mr.Titus Enock, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.Roshan Atiq, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Mr.Titus Enock, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, would state that the defendants 1 and 2 were alone actively contesting the suit on behalf of all the other defendants and that the 3rd defendant was bedridden on account of his advanced age and the 1st defendant had to additionally take care of the 3rd d
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
