R.Sundarasami Gounder (59) v. A.P.Muruganandam

Crl.M.P.No.13014 of 2016 in Crl.A.Sr.No.8147 of 2015 M.VENUGOPAL, J.

The Learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore had addressed a communication to this Court on 09.01.2017 stating that High Court Notice was served on Respondents 2 and 3. Further, he had stated that Notice to the 1st Respondent was not served.

2.Today when the matter has come up for hearing, there is no representation on the side of Respondents 2 and 3 either in person or through Learned Counsel. No counter is filed on behalf of the 4th Respondent. Even though notice to R1 is not served, to avoid an avoidable delay, this Court dispenses with the issuance of fresh notice.

3.Considering the fact that the Petitioner had originally filed a Revision in Crl.R.C.Sr.No.8147 of 2016 and later the papers were returned by the Office of the Registry and further necessary amendments were carried out and the papers were sent for

M.VENUGOPAL.J , Sgl signature of the Petitioner and ultimately, the present Crl.A.Sr.No.8147 of 2015 has been filed with a delay of 272 days in representing the Appeal. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the Crl.M.P.No.13014 of 2016 to condone the said delay of 272 days in representing the Appeal in question.

4.In view of the fact that 'Delay in Representation' is a matter between the Applicant/Petitioner and the Court, this Court, on being subjectively satisfied as to the reasons ascribed on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant for the delay of 272 days that has occurred, especially at para 5 of the affidavit in Crl.M.P.No.13014 of 2016, by taking a lenient and liberal view, condones the delay of 272 days in the interest of Justice.

5.In fine, the Crl.M.P.No.13014 of 2016 is allowed. 12.01.2017 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Sgl Crl.M.P.No.13014 of 2016 in Crl.A.Sr.No.8147 of 2015

http://www.judis.nic.in