Skip to content


Mathukumalli Ramayya and ors. Vs. Vuppalapatti Lakshmayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Mad598; (1938)2MLJ128
AppellantMathukumalli Ramayya and ors.
RespondentVuppalapatti Lakshmayya
Excerpt:
- .....petition was accordingly filed on the 12th march, 1938. we accept these statements made by the petitioners' counsel and according to them the real delay is only of four days. there is also the fact that the petitioners are a large number, who, in different sets, are interested in small portions of the subject-matter of the appeal. it is not unreasonable that they should come to some arrangements between themselves in the matter of the deposit. the mere fact that one or some of them could have made the deposit is not the reasonable test to be applied.2. in view of the special circumstances of the case, we excuse the delay. as it is late today and to-morrow is a holiday, we extend time till thursday, the 14th instant. the petitioners will however pay to the respondent the costs of this.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The Full Bench have laid down that the Court can grant an extension of time but it must be for cogent reason. A number of affidavits, counter-affidavits and reply affidavits have been filed before us. They disclose a certain amount of conflict but certain main facts are beyond dispute. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has told us that he received intimation by trunk phone from his clients in the mofussilon the 10th March, 1938, that they were in a position to make the deposit but as the time had expired by that date he was asked for advice as to what they ought to do. He replied to them to come over to Madras immediately. This they did but it was too late on the 11th when they arrived to file the petition for extension that day. This petition was accordingly filed on the 12th March, 1938. We accept these statements made by the petitioners' Counsel and according to them the real delay is only of four days. There is also the fact that the petitioners are a large number, who, in different sets, are interested in small portions of the subject-matter of the appeal. It is not unreasonable that they should come to some arrangements between themselves in the matter of the deposit. The mere fact that one or some of them could have made the deposit is not the reasonable test to be applied.

2. In view of the special circumstances of the case, we excuse the delay. As it is late today and to-morrow is a holiday, we extend time till Thursday, the 14th instant. The petitioners will however pay to the respondent the costs of this petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //