Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
L.Damris Lydia Janet – Appellant
Versus
Malliga – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in filing appeal necessitates a sufficient cause. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court emphasizes bona fide reasons for condonation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. delay not condoned without justified reasons. (Para 5) |
| 4. final order dismissing the petition. (Para 6) |
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
This petition is filed seeking to condone the delay of 466 days in filing the above writ appeal.
2. The reason assigned in the affidavit is that though the order was passed on 03.10.2023, the order copy was made ready only on
23.01.2025. Therefore, there is a delay of 466 days.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 4 submits that the State has preferred an appeal against the said order and the petitioner has also appeared in the said appeal, which is not disputed by the petitioner. Hence, he opposed to allow this petition.
4. Normally, when an application for condonation of delay is filed, the Court is in favour of the party where the party shows some bona fide reasons, which are sufficient to allow the petition. When the party comes to the Court without any bona fide for the sake of filing of writ appeal by making certain allegations as a matter of
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
