1.Kunjamma Vs. 1.Larence John

1.Kunjamma vs 1.Larence John

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 02, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/964385

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/964385
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G.Rajasuria
Decided On: Jan 02, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

1.Kunjamma

Respondent

1.Larence John

Excerpt

.....o”1. kunjamma 2.titus john .. petitioners vs 1.larence john 2.soudamini amma 3.sadasivan pillai 4.dharmaraj 5.sajitha kumari 6.sreedharan 7.helan hepsy boy 8.oormila devi .. respondents petition filed under section 115 of c.p.c., against the order and decreetal order dated 17.08.2012 of the learned subordinate judge, kuzhithurai, made in i.a.no.143 of 2009 in a.s.s.r.no.1351 of 2007. !for petitioners... mr.k.n.thampi ^for respondents... no appearance :order the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would echo the heart- burns of his clients to the effect that they presented the appeal memorandum in a.s.s.r.no.1351 of 2007 and i.a.no.177 of 2007 to get the delay of 74 days condoned in filing the appeal memorandum. however, that was dismissed for default, whereupon, i.a.no.143 of 2009 was filed for getting the i.a., restored which was dismissed by the lower court unjustifiably. the earlier delay of 74 days was not huge. according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the averments in the affidavit as found set out in the application for getting the i.a.no.177 of 2007 restored was on the ground that the second petitioner, viz. titus john met with an accident and that the first petitioner- kunjamma was an old lady, being the mother of p2. i.a.no.143 of 2009 was filed without any delay. 2.now, even after printing the names of the contesting respondents, there is no response. what i could glean and discern, perceive and infer is that the first appellate court should have been lenient in restoring the i.a.no.177 of 2007, instead of dismissing the i.a.no.143 of 2009. the old lady-p1 cannot be expected to prosecute the case effectively when she has got a son-p2. however, in this case, unfortunately the son met with an accident and that he was not in a position to pursue the matter further. whereas, the lower court in its cryptic order, without considering the genuine reasons found set out in the affidavit of the petitioners, simply dismissed it.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

02. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2629 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 o”

1. Kunjamma 2.Titus John .. Petitioners Vs 1.Larence John 2.Soudamini Amma 3.Sadasivan Pillai 4.Dharmaraj 5.Sajitha Kumari 6.Sreedharan 7.Helan Hepsy Boy 8.Oormila Devi .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the order and decreetal order dated 17.08.2012 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, made in I.A.No.143 of 2009 in A.S.S.R.No.1351 of 2007. !For petitioners... Mr.K.N.Thampi ^For respondents... No appearance :ORDER The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would echo the heart- burns of his clients to the effect that they presented the Appeal Memorandum in A.S.S.R.No.1351 of 2007 and I.A.No.177 of 2007 to get the delay of 74 days condoned in filing the Appeal Memorandum. However, that was dismissed for default, whereupon, I.A.No.143 of 2009 was filed for getting the I.A., restored which was dismissed by the Lower Court unjustifiably. The earlier delay of 74 days was not huge. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the averments in the affidavit as found set out in the application for getting the I.A.No.177 of 2007 restored was on the ground that the second petitioner, viz. Titus John met with an accident and that the first petitioner- Kunjamma was an old lady, being the mother of P2. I.A.No.143 of 2009 was filed without any delay. 2.Now, even after printing the names of the contesting respondents, there is no response. What I could glean and discern, perceive and infer is that the first Appellate Court should have been lenient in restoring the I.A.No.177 of 2007, instead of dismissing the I.A.No.143 of 2009. The old lady-P1 cannot be expected to prosecute the case effectively when she has got a son-P2. However, in this case, unfortunately the son met with an accident and that he was not in a position to pursue the matter further. Whereas, the Lower Court in its cryptic order, without considering the genuine reasons found set out in the affidavit of the petitioners, simply dismissed it warranting interference in revision. On balance, the order of the Lower Court in I.A.No.143 of 2009 is set aside and the earlier I.A. shall stand restored. Whereupon, the Lower Court is mandated to take up the I.A.No.177 of 2007 for hearing and dispose it of on merits. 3.The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observation. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. KM To The District Munsif, Mudukulathur.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2013 Same Parties 1.Kunjamma vs 1.Larence John Same Subject Education Same Judge G.Rajasuria