HAMASA Vs. DHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above application is filed to condone the delay of 375 days in filing the restoration application in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in S.A.No.(SR).102545 of 2007 which by itself is an application seeking to condone the delay of 972 days in filing the appeal.

(2.) The petitioner in her affidavit filed in support of the said petition has stated that during the pendency of M.P.No.1 of 2008, the 6th respondent Subramani died and the Second Appeal itself abated and the same was dismissed. She has thereafter filed M.P.Nos.1 to 6 of 2008, M.P.No.1 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 for the following relief:

(3.) The petitioner has further contended that she was periodically in touch with her counsel and he had informed her that the condone delay petition was pending and that as and when her presence was required, he would inform her. She was therefore awaiting her counsel's intimation. She would further submit that she is 70 years old and all her sons are having separate residence and there was none to help her. From the month of January 2006, she has been unwell and was taking native treatment for which she is consuming local medicines and owing to her poverty she is unable to spend money for medical expenses. The petitioner would further contend that although her sons initially helped her with the legal proceedings, they have not evinced interest in the case from 1997 and all of them are also finding it difficult to make ends meet.