C.SELVI Vs Rajkumar

C.Selvi vs Rajkumar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Apr 28, 2026

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1425257

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1425257
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan,Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Apr 28, 2026
Case Number: CMP/14664/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.Selvi

Respondent

Rajkumar

Excerpt

inc.m.a sr. no.25554 of 2025 and this petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal. 2.in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it had been stated that after obtaining the certified copy of the decree, steps were taken to file the appeal, but there was a delay in generating the court fee. 3.notice had been directed to the respondents. the learned counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent. the 1st and 2nd respondents had remained ex parte even before the trial court. 4.at any rate, to provide opportunity to the appellants herein, to advance arguments on all arguable points, the delay is condoned. accordingly, this petition is allowed. the registry is directed to number the appeal if it is otherwise inorder.(c.v.k., j.) (k.r.s., j.) smv and smv in cma sr. no.25554 of 2025

Full Judgment

in
C.M.A SR. No.25554 of 2025 AND This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal. 2.In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it had been stated that after obtaining the certified copy of the decree, steps were taken to file the appeal, but there was a delay in generating the Court fee. 3.Notice had been directed to the respondents. The learned counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent. The 1st and 2nd respondents had remained ex parte even before the trial Court. 4.At any rate, to provide opportunity to the appellants herein, to advance arguments on all arguable points, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The Registry is directed to number the appeal if it is otherwise in

order.

(C.V.K., J.) (K.R.S., J.) smv AND smv in CMA SR. No.25554 of 2025

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties C.Selvi vs Rajkumar Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan,Honourable Mr.Justice ...

Certified copy On behalf of trial court ex parte Has been