Arjuna Gounder v. Pachaiammal

CMP.No.8223 of 2025 in Rev.Appl.Sr.No.43837 of 2025 in S.A.No.1139 of 2010 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

This application has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 1090 days in filing the Review Application.

2. Notice had been directed. The learned counsel for the respondents had filed a memo that the respondents had taken back the case papers from him which necessitated notice to be issued to the respondents in person. An affidavit of service has been filed stating notice had been served and acknowledgment cards have also been produced. The names and addresses of the respondents were printed in the cause list. There is no appearance. So far as this condone delay petition is concerned, they are set exparte.

3. A perusal of the affidavit shows that the delay was caused due to the talks of compromise. However, an application has been filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner which is now pending before the Trial Court.

4. Taking all these factors into consideration, the delay is condoned and this application is allowed.

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

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

gsk

5. The Registry to number the review application, if it is otherwise in order and list before this Court on 03.07.2025. 27.06.2025 gsk CMP.No.8223 of 2025 in Rev.Appl.Sr.No.43837 of 2025 in S.A.No.1139 of 2010 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis