Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
R.Sundaram – Appellant
Versus
Muniyappan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court considers the request for condonation due to illness and pandemic. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the respondent argues that delay shows lack of interest in proceedings. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. court finds no satisfactory explanation for the delay. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final ruling of dismissal of petition. (Para 9) |
ORDER
A delay of 1978 days in filing the revision is sought to be condoned.
2. I have heard Mr.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Arokia Maniraj, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the respondent had filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.269 of 2003 and the petitioner also filed his written statement contesting the claim. However, thereafter, due to his ill health, he was not able to appear and contact his Counsel, which resulted in an ex- parte decree being passed on 09.02.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the terms of the agreement, even on a casual glance, would evidence the fact that it was not a genuine transaction and when the valuable right of immovable property of the petitioner is sought to be taken away under the teeth of an
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
