T.SEETHARAMAN Vs. M.SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.76 of 2011 is the Revision Petitioner herein.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the petitioner himself met with an accident during July 2011 and subsequently, petitioner's wife also suffered multiple fracture in the spinal -cord, on account of the accidental fall and therefore, he was not in a position to contest the case and therefore, the delay ought to have been condoned.

(3.) Therefore, the issue to be considered is whether by condoning the delay the cause of otherside would remain prejudiced.