Dayakaran (Died) 1.Joice, v. Malarveni

C.M.P.No.29881 of 2026 in C.R.P.SR.No.191715 of 2025 P.B.BALAJI, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Though notice to the respondent remains unserved, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the private notice dated 08.12.2025, which has been served on the counsel, who appeared for the respondent before the Trial Court.

3. I find that the counsel has been put on notice and that the typed set of papers has also been served on the counsel for the respondent. In any event, the present application is only for condonation of delay of 15 days in preferring the revision. Hence, I treat the service of notice on the counsel for the respondent as proper service. I have also gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay and find that the petitioner has made out a sufficient cause and is entitled to an order of condonation of delay. Accordingly, the CMP is ordered. 28.01.2026 pvs https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.B.BALAJI, J.

pvs C.M.P.No.29881 of 2026 28.01.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis