✦ Madras High Court

U.Muthulakshmi v. G.Raman

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

Taking that factor into consideration, the delay stands condoned and the petition is allowed

Provisions considered

Judgment

C.M.P.(MD)No.18408 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)SR.No.41720 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 14.11.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMARC.M.P.(MD)No.18408 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)SR.No.41720 of 2025U.Muthulakshmi... Petitioner-vs-G.Raman... RespondentPRAYER: Petition filed under Section 149 of C.P.C. praying to condone the delay of 140 days in paying the deficit Court fees of Rs.2,03,436/- in the above appeal suit. For Petitioner:Mr.V.ElangovanFor Respondent:Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram____________Page 1 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P.(MD)No.18408 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)SR.No.41720 of 2025O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.)This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 140 days in paying the deficit Court fee of Rs.2,03,436/- in the above Appeal Suit.2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, it had been stated that unfortunately, the appellant had mistakenly paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- as Court fees without noticing the actual Court fees to be paid. Subsequently, the deficit Court fee has also been paid.3. Taking that factor into consideration, the delay stands condoned and the petition is allowed.4. Registry is directed to number the Appeal Suit, if it is otherwise in order. [C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.]vsm 14.11.2025____________Page 2 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P.(MD)No.18408 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)SR.No.41720 of 2025C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J. andR.VIJAYAKUMAR , J. vsmC.M.P.(MD)No.18408 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)SR.No.41720 of 202514.11.2025____________Page 3 of 3

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Taking that factor into consideration, the delay stands condoned and the petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 149.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments