M. PALANISAMY Vs. JEYAKUMAR (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/ 6th defendant, as against the order, dated 11.10.2018, passed in I.A. No. 22 of 2018 in A.S. SR. No. 1678 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/appellant seeking condonation of delay of 387 days in filing the appeal.

(2.) The first respondent herein and her husband by name Jeyakumar have filed the suit in O.S. No. 213 of 2004 for permanent injunction. The petitioner is the 6th defendant in the suit. The trial Court, after trial, has decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner /6th defendant and defendants 4 and 5 have presented an appeal before the first appellate Court with a delay of 387 days. For condoning the said delay, the petitioner/6th respondent has filed I.A. No. 22 of 2018. The Court below, after hearing both sides, has dismissed the petition for condonation of delay. Challenging the same, the petitioner/6th defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/6th defendant submitted that though the petitioner/6th defendant has stated that due to treatment for accidental injuries, the petitioner/6th defendant could not appear before the trial Court and could not file the appeal in time, the Court below has erroneously dismissed the petition for condonation of delay. He would further submit that after filing the petition for condonation of delay, the petitioner/6th defendant has filed a memo by which he produced a discharge summary issued by the hospital authority and the Court below also received the same. But, the Court below, without looking into the same, has erroneously dismissed the petition for condonation of delay. Thus, he prayed to allow this petition.