C.Nandagopal Vs M.Revathy

C.Nandagopal vs M.Revathy

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jun 24, 2026

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1453849

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/1453849
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan,Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jun 24, 2026
Case Number: CMP/14386/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.Nandagopal

Respondent

M.Revathy

Excerpt

cmp no.14386 of 2026 in as sr no.77297 of 2026c.v.karthikeyan, j.andk.rajasekar, j.(order of the court was made by c.v.karthikeyan, j.) this petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 89 days in filing the above appeal. 2.notice had been directed to the respondents, notice had been served and the learned counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. 3.the suit had been filed seeking partition and separate possession. since the suit is forpartition, it would only be appropriate the issuesare examined again by the first appellate court.4.taking that factor into consideration, the delay stands condoned. registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order and list the appeal for admission. registry may also print the name of the counsel for the respondents in the cause list when the appeal is posted for admission. (c.v.k.j., ) (k.r.s.j., ) sli 24.06.2026https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Full Judgment

CMP No.14386 of 2026 in AS SR No.77297 of 2026

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

and

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.) This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 89 days in filing the above appeal. 2.Notice had been directed to the respondents, notice had been served and the learned counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. 3.The suit had been filed seeking partition and separate possession. Since the suit is for

partition, it would only be appropriate the issues

are examined again by the First Appellate Court.

4.Taking that factor into consideration, the delay stands condoned. Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order and list the appeal for admission. Registry may also print the name of the counsel for the respondents in the cause list when the appeal is posted for admission. (C.V.K.J., ) (K.R.S.J., ) sli 24.06.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties C.Nandagopal vs M.Revathy Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan,Honourable Mr.Justice ...