High CourtsSingle Bench(2003) 07 MAD CK 0064

E. Seetharama Reddiar vs S. Jayaraman

Madras High Court · Decided on 16 July 2003

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Chockalingam, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P. NPD. No. 155 of 2003 and C.M.P. No. 1646 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 411 words

M. Chockalingam, J.—There was no representation, when the matter was taken up by this Court. Heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioner.

2.

What is challenged herein is an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai allowing an application to condone the delay of 41 days in

preferring an appeal.

3.

It was a suit filed by the petitioner herein for recovery of possession and other reliefs. It was contested by the respondent herein. But, the suit

was decreed in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved respondent/defendant has preferred the instant appeal. But, while doing so, there was a delay of

41 days. The reason that was adduced by the defendant/appellant was that he was absent at Australia, and hence, he could not know the final

proceedings in the suit; that after his return from abroad, he came to know about the same, and in such circumstances, there was delay of 41 days

in filing the appeal, and hence, he has filed the instant application to condone the said delay.

4.

What was contended by the revision petitioner''s side before the Court below and equally here also is that the delay was not explained by the

petitioner in any way. Added further the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the lower Court has taken the delay as only 8 days, while the

respondent himself has stated in the affidavit as well as in the petition the delay as 41 days, and this fact has influenced the lower Court to allow the

application even when the delay was not explained.

5.

The Court is unable to notice any merit or substance in this revision. Even assuming that a delay of 41 days was caused, in view of the reasons

adduced by the respondent, the Court is of the view that such delay is neither inordinate nor inexcusable, and the same has got to be condoned.

The lower Court has allowed the application without awarding costs. But, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be given to the

respondent to pay costs to the petitioner.

6.

Therefore, the respondent is directed to pay a costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of this order, failing which I.A. No. 166 of 2001 shall stand dismissed automatically. With this modification, this civil revision petition is

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is also dismissed.