Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
Ravichandran represented by his Power Agent Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
Balachandran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and ex-parte circumstances. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding locus standi and grievance. (Para 6 , 11) |
| 3. court's discretion and rationale for condoning delay. (Para 7 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal principles on delay and discretion. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. final ruling and costs determination. (Para 16) |
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam in I.A.No.57 of 2021 in O.S.No.119 of 2014, dated 25.11.2022.
2.O.S.No.119 of 2014 is a suit for partition and separate possession filed by one Sengalani. He arrayed the Civil Revision Petitioner as the first defendant and the contesting respondent as the second defendant in the suit. The third defendant is the brother of the plaintiff, like the second defendant. Defendants 4 to 6 seem to be strangers to the family. The seventh defendant is the purchaser from the first respondent. Summons was sent to the defendant.
3.The second defendant took a plea that on service of summons, he had contacted the plaintiff. The plaintiff reported that if the second defendant could send a vakalath to him, he would engage a la
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
