Senthil Kumar v. Nalina Ammal

C.M.P.Nos.11105 and 11157 of 2022 and Rev.Appl.(SR).Nos.62021 and 61957 of 2022 P.T. ASHA, J, The above petitions are filed for condoning the delay of 82 days in filing the Review Applications.

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petitions, the petitioners have submitted that though the revision had been disposed of on 24.02.2022, his counsel had not filed a copy application and despite several requests, he has not applied copy application. Thereafter, he had changed his counsel in the month of June 2022. He had applied for copy of the order and the same was received by him on 27.06.2022. Therefore, there occurred a delay of 82 days in filing the review petition.

1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.T. ASHA, J, mps 3.The said applications are strongly objected by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit. However, in the counter affidavit, there is nothing to refute the statement made by the review petitioners 2 to 4, wherein the reasons for the delay has been set out. Considering the fact that there is no serious objection set out in the counter affidavit, the delay is condoned and these petitions are allowed.

29.08.2022 mps C.M.P.Nos.11105&11157/22& Rev.Appl.(SR).Nos.62021&61957/22 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis