9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. V. Singan, Advocate for the petitioner, the court made the following order:- This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 546 days in filing the appeal suit. 2. The petitioner states that he had his residences one at Chennai a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when sufficient reasons are given, the delay can be condoned and in support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments:- (1) AIR 1988 CALCUTTA 28 (Sipra Dey vs. Ajit Kumar Dey); (2) AIR 1979 DELHI 26 (Nirmala Chaudhary vs. Bisheshar Lal); (3) AIR 1971 KERALA 211 (V 58 C 44) (State vs. Kirishna Kurup) 4. On the other han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is seen from the records that the respondent had filed a suit in O.S. No. 76 of 2015 for recovery of money as against the petitioner/appellant. In the said suit, the petitioner was called absent and set ex-parte. The petitioner filed petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and it was dismissed by the trial court. Then, the petitioner pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner was also not accepted by the Apex Court. Hence, this court come to the conclusion that the reasons stated in this petition are not sufficient and they are not acceptable. The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case.
8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
