M.Maheshkumar v. M.Saraswathy

in A.S.SR.No.29091 of 2024 P.T.ASHA, J., The above application is filed for condonation of delay of 142 days in filing the appeal suit.

2.

The petitioner in his affidavit would submit that he was not informed about the passing of the preliminary decree proceedings on 13.07.2023 and it was known to him only when the Advocate Commissioner appointed in I.A.No.6 of 2023 in O.S.No.2781 of 2022 had visited the property to divide the same by metes and bounds as per the preliminary decree. Thereafter, he had changed his counsel and approached the present counsel to prefer an appeal against the preliminary decree. This has resulted in the delay of 142 days in filing the above appeal.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently oppose the condonation of delay on the ground that he has 1/3

to verify as to whether the erstwhile counsel had filed an application for receiving the certified copy of the judgment. 4.

The above argument cannot be countenanced for the reason that even though the earlier counsel had applied for the copy application, he had not informed the appellants/petitioners about the passing of the preliminary decree.

5.

The reasons that have been given by the appellants/petitioners are sufficient and considering the fact that the suit in question is one for partition, no prejudice could be caused to the respondent if the delay is condoned. Consequently, the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal suit is condoned and this petition is allowed. 6.

The Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise, in order and list the same for admission. 10.04.2024 ssa 2/3

P.T.ASHA, J., ssa in A.S.SR.No.29091 of 2024 10.04.2024 3/3