Rajagopal Muralitharan
Outcome
Application allowed“For the foregoing reasons, I allowed the summons for the reinstatement of the originating summons and the abridgement of time.”
Source: [2023] SGHC 133, High Court (General Division), decided 9 May 2023. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Choo Han Teck |
| Charges / claim | Legal Profession |
| Outcome | Application allowed |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Avery Chong, Clement Lim, Naomi Ho |
Source: [2023] SGHC 133, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Parties (1)
Case Significance
Re Rajagopal Muralitharan [2023] SGHC 133 is a grounds of decision of Choo Han Teck J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 9 May 2023 in Admission of Advocates and Solicitors No 33 of 2022 (Summonses Nos 1182, 1187 and 1345 of 2023). The applicant, Mr Rajagopal Muralitharan, sat the Part B examinations in 2021, filed HC/AAS 33/2022 on 11 February 2022 for admission in expectation of passing, but failed and had to retake the examination in 2022, which he passed. Having filed his affidavit of admission one day after the 18 April 2023 deadline for the May Monthly Call, and with his originating summons having expired on 11 February 2023, he sought an abridgement of time and reinstatement of the summons.
Summary
Rajagopal Muralitharan applied for admission as an advocate and solicitor after passing the Part B examinations on his second attempt in 2022. His originating summons had expired and his supporting affidavit was filed one day late, so he sought reinstatement of the summons under Order 21 rule 2(8) and an abridgement of time to be called at the May 2023 Monthly Call. Over the Attorney-General's objection to the abridgement, the court allowed both applications.
What was Re Rajagopal Muralitharan [2023] SGHC 133 about?
Mr Rajagopal Muralitharan sought admission as an advocate and solicitor after passing Part B on his second attempt in 2022. Choo Han Teck J addressed his applications for an abridgement of time and reinstatement of his expired originating summons. The decision was delivered on 9 May 2023.
Why did the applicant in Re Rajagopal Muralitharan [2023] SGHC 133 need further applications?
His affidavit of admission was filed one day after the 18 April 2023 deadline for the May Monthly Call, and his originating summons, filed on 11 February 2022, had expired on 11 February 2023, so he filed HC/SUM 1182/2023 for an abridgement of time and sought reinstatement of the summons.
Statutes Cited
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 133)