S. SUSHEELADEVI Vs. S. SUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, who suffered a decree in O.S.No.331 of 2007 and filed the First Appeal, along with an application for condonation of delay of 371 days, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.R.Ganesh, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent was contested by the petitioner and a decree came to be passed on 16/12/2010 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Erode. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, has preferred the First Appeal, though belatedly. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was that the petitioner's mother was suffering from brain clot and she had been admitted in the hospital and she also underwent a surgery in December 2010 and that thereafter, the petitioner's mother suffers from Dementia and the petitioner, being the only daughter of her mother, had to take complete care and therefore, the petitioner could not concentrate on the legal issues.