Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J
Ramar @ Ramachandran – Appellant
Versus
Pothiyakannan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals against dismissal of delay condonation for suit restoration. (Para 2) |
| 2. prior rulings on non-appealability of condonation orders. (Para 3) |
| 3. supreme court: independent remedies, no merger. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. convert appeals to revisions as correct remedy. (Para 7) |
COMMON ORDER
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.1316 of 2025 is directed against the order passed in I.A.NO.7 of 2024 in O.S.No.63 of 2014, dismissing the petition to condone the delay of 340 days in representing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in filing an application under Order IX Ryle 9 C.P.C., which was filed to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default.
2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.1317 of
2025 is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.8 of 2024, dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 508 days in filing the application to restore the suit under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.c., which was dismissed for default on 25.02.2022.
3. In a similar fact situation, in a batch of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, in C.M.A.(MD)No.101 of 2026 and batch cases, this Court has spe
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
