KUMARADAS, S/O.PARAMESWARAN Vs. M.K.SIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT .

(2.) THE 1st respondent appears through counsel. Since the 2nd respondent is the assignor of the 1st respondent and has no subsisting interest in the properties, notice to the 2nd respondent is not necessary and hence is dispensed with. Moreover, he was given notice on the application to condone the delay but there was no response.

(3.) THE following substantial question of law is framed for a decision: