Allowed

Sabruhan Beevi v. Tamilnadu Ashpestos and Cement

Madras HC10 Oct 2011CRP(MD)/1616/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a civil revision petition under Article 226, directing the Sub-Court at Srivilliputhur to dispose of an application for condoning delay in setting aside an ex-parte decree within four weeks, reporting the result to the Registry.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the Civil Revision Petition; directed the Sub-Court to dispose of I.A.No.16 of 2010 before November 2011 and report to the Registry.

Sabruhan Beevi Vs Tamilnadu Ashpestos and Cement — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :10.10.2011

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶6

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1616 of 2011

1.Sabruhan Beevi

2.M.Anwar Ali

3.M.Hyder Ali

4.M.Sidiq Ali

5.M.Mahaboob Ali

6.M.Mohamed Ali ..Petitioners/Petitioner 2 to 7/Defendant 2 to 7

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Tamil Nadu Ashpestos and Cements Corporation Ltd., L.L.A. Building, 735, Anna Salai, Chennai. .. Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶15

Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the earlier disposal of I.A.No.16 of 2010 in O.S.No.112 of 1994 on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For respondent : Mr.A.Sivaji

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed praying to give necessary direction to dispose of I.A.No.16 of 2010 in O.S.No.112 of 1994 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur, as early as possible.

¶19

It is stated in the revision petition that the respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted O.S.No.112 of 1994 on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur for getting a money decree, wherein an ex-parte decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in E.P.No.89 of 2008 and further it is stated in the petition that I.A.No.16 of 2010 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, so as to condone the delay of 4373 days in filing a petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.112 of 1994 and further it is stated in the Civil Revision Petition that I.A.No.16 of 2010 is liable to be disposed of, as early as possible.

¶20

Considering the fact that in O.S.No.112 of 1994 an ex-parte decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in E.P.No.89 of 2008 and also considering that I.A.No.16 of 2010 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, so as to condone the delay of 4373 days, this Court is of the view to give necessary direction to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dispose of I.A.No.16 of 2010, as stated infra.

¶21

¶22

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs and the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur is directed to dispose of I.A.No.16 of 2010 before November, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.

¶28

The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai (for watching report)

¶29

+1cc to Mr.A.Sivaji, Advocate, SR.No.35015

¶30

pm GH : 13.10.2011 : 2p/4c

¶31

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1616 of 2011 10.10.2011

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sabruhan Beevi v. Tamilnadu Ashpestos and Cement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabruhan Beevi v. Tamilnadu Ashpestos and Cement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seenivasan @ Karuppiah Vs Kalyanasundaram Chettiar

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs P. Rajaram

Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Kalimuthu

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs Settukumar

Alagar, S/O.Mari, Vs Chellachamy, S/O.Ponnuthevar

A.Mohammed Ali Vs S.Srinivasan