Skip to content


Petitioner Vs. Respondent - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Chennai High Court

Decided On

Case Number

M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015 in Rev.Apln.Nos. 44 & 45 of 2015

Judge

Appellant

Petitioner

Respondent

Respondent

Excerpt:


1. mr.r.govindasamy, learned special government pleader informs this court that he appears for r1 to r5. no counter is filed on behalf of r1 to r5. 2. admittedly, review application nos.44 and 45 of 2015 filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this court on 14.08.2015, since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner even after the review applications were called for the second time. 3. at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings it to the notice of this court that when the review applications came up for hearing on 14.08.2015, he was unable to present with a view to prosecute the matter, because of the reason that he was held up before other court. 4. this court, on being subjectively satisfied as to the reason ascribed on behalf of the petitioner, by taking a lenient and liberal view and to advance the cause of justice, without harping on technicalities, allows the m.p.nos.1 and 1 of 2015 and directs the restoration of review application nos.44 and 45 of 2015 to file. 5. post the review applications on 06.03.2017 at 2.15 p.m.

Judgment:


1. Mr.R.Govindasamy, Learned Special Government Pleader informs this Court that he appears for R1 to R5. No counter is filed on behalf of R1 to R5.

2. Admittedly, Review Application Nos.44 and 45 of 2015 filed by the Petitioner were dismissed by this Court on 14.08.2015, since there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner even after the Review Applications were called for the second time.

3. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that when the Review Applications came up for hearing on 14.08.2015, he was unable to present with a view to prosecute the matter, because of the reason that he was held up before other Court.

4. This Court, on being subjectively satisfied as to the reason ascribed on behalf of the Petitioner, by taking a lenient and liberal view and to advance the cause of Justice, without harping on technicalities, allows the M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2015 and directs the restoration of Review Application Nos.44 and 45 of 2015 to file.

5. Post the Review Applications on 06.03.2017 at 2.15 p.m.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //