Dismissed

M.Thiyagarajan v. Mary Jenita

Madras HC2 Jan 2012CRP(MD)/2473/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order by the Principal District Court, Thanjavur. The Lower Court had allowed an application to set aside an ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, finding sufficient cause for the delay due to lack of service. The High Court held the Lower Court's order was well-reasoned and did not call for interference.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

M.Thiyagarajan Vs Mary Jenita — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.01.2012

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

C.R.P. (PD)(MD).No.2473 of 2011

¶7

and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶8

M.Thiyagarajan

¶9

¶10

Mary Jenita ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to allow this revision and to set aside the order dated 08.09.2011 passed by the Principal District Court, Thanjavur, in I.A.No.92 of 2011 in O.S.No.155 of 2010.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.P.Sesubalan Raja

¶13

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This revision challenges the order of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur, passed in I.A.No.92 of 2011 in O.S.No.155 of 2010 which is a suit moved by the petitioner herein for the relief of specific performance of an alleged sale agreement with an alternative prayer for refund the advance amount and compensation with subsequent interest. Such suit was decreed ex parte on 06.04.2011. The respondent has moved I.A. No.92 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay of 70 days in moving the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. The Court below being satisfied that the summons in the suit was not served on the respondent and that she had been called absent and set ex parte pursuant to effecting paper publication, accepted the plea of the respondent that she had no knowledge of the suit proceedings, found that she had established sufficient cause for the delay of 70 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and accordingly allowed the application. Thereagainst, this revision is filed.

¶16

Heard Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the order of the Court below, I find the order under challenge to be a well-reasoned one that

¶18

¶19

does not call for any interference of this Court. Hence, the revision shall stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.

¶26

+One cc to Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja, Advocate, SR.No.29 srm rl/3c – 18.1.2012

¶27

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.2473 of 2011

¶28

02.01.2012

¶29

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

M.Thiyagarajan v. Mary Jenita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Thiyagarajan v. Mary Jenita

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

Kirubanidhi Vs State by

Major.K.Mathews Vs S.Manivannan

E.K.Palanisamy Vs the Inspector of Police

R.S.Boopathi Vs R.Chithrave

D.Karthikeyan Vs K.Subasini

Subramanian Vs D. Tagore