RATHINA MEENAKSHI Vs. PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, aggrieved by an order of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli made in I.A.No.285 of 2010 in un-numbered appeal dismissing her application for condonation of delay of 416 days in filing the appeal, has come up with this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The appeal was sought to be filed challenging the decree for specific performance granted by the Sub Court, Tirunelveli in O.S.No.39 of 2008. According to the petitioner, she could not file the appeal within the time allowed since she was forced to shift her residence as well as change her phone number. Due to inadvertence, she did not inform her counsel. Therefore, her counsel was unable to inform about the copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court being made ready. According to her, she came to know about the judgment and decree having made ready only she met her counsel at Tirunelveli when she went there for medical check-up.

(3.) The respondent/decree-holder resisted the application contending that the reasons set out are not bonafide and the petitioner also deposited the balance sale consideration into Court. It is also claimed that if the delay is condoned, it will cause undue hardship and prejudice to the respondent.