Allowed

Meenalochini v. K.Ponnusamy

Madras HC21 Jan 2014CRP(MD)/478/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed the trial court's condition requiring 50% deposit to condone ex-parte absence. The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and the set-aside petition, directing the trial court to deposit the already made quantity in an interest-bearing account and expedite the suit trial.

What did the court decide?

Condition of 50% deposit set aside; Limitation Petition and Set Aside Petition allowed; Trial court directed to deposit Rs.20,000 in interest-bearing account and expedite trial.

Meenalochini Vs K.Ponnusamy — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 21.01.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.478 of 2011 and

¶7

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

¶8

Meenalochini

¶9

Sakthivadivel

¶10

Susila Devi

¶11

Sumathi

¶12

Muthulakshmi

¶13

Manikandan 7. Banuprabha 11

¶14

Banuprabha ... Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants 3,4,5,6,9 to

¶15

K.Ponnusamy ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶16

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside order dated 23.03.2010 made in I.A.No.257 of 2010, in O.S.No.202 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanoor.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan

¶18

For Respondent : Mr.S.Kadarkarai

¶19

- - - - ORDER

¶20

The defendants are before this Court, challenging the order passed by the trial Court directing the petitioners to deposit 50% of the decree amount in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money given on mortgage.

¶21

Heard Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kadarkarai, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

The respondent filed a suit for recovery of money. The petitioners were set exparte on 07.07.2009. To condone the delay of 24 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree, the petitioners filed I.A.No.257 of 2009. The said petition was allowed with a condition to deposit 50% of the suit amount into the Court along https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with costs, by order dated 23.03.2010. The said order is being challenged before this Court.

¶23

¶24

It is contended by the petitioners that the condition imposed is unreasonable.

¶25

Though the trial Court is justified in dismissing the

¶26

petition stating that there is no proper reason given for absence of the petitioners/defendants when they were set exparte on 07.07.2009, the petitioners should be given an opportunity to contest the suit. No doubt, the trial Court granted opportunity only on condition to deposit 50% of the suit amount. The said condition is very unreasonable. Therefore, putting such a condition is not in the interest of the parties. Therefore, the condition imposed by the trial Court is set aside. However, as per the order of this Court dated 23.03.2011, the petitioners already deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to deposit the said amount in the interest bearing deposit in any one of the Nationalised Bank, till the disposal of the proceedings.

¶27

In view of the above, the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the petitioners is hereby allowed. Moreover, what is to be consequently allowed is the set aside petition, for which the respondent cannot have any objection. Accordingly, the set aside petition is also allowed.

¶28

Considering the fact that the petitioners/defendants have already filed their written statement and the suit is ready for trial, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on or before 31-August-2014.

¶29

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶31

/True Copy/

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

The District Munsif cum

¶35

Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanoor.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.S.Kadarkarai, Advocate Sr.No.3732

¶37

+1cc to Mr. R.Suriyanarayanan, Advocate Sr.3691 ssl AA/29.01.2014/2p-4c/

¶38

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.478 of 2011

¶39

and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 21.01.2014

¶40

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

Meenalochini v. K.Ponnusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenalochini v. K.Ponnusamy

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

V.Moni Vs the Assistant Executive

K.Raju Vs Maruthammal

R. Balasubramanian, Vs S. Sethukarai Nadar

Branch Manager, Vs Sivakami, W/O. Kannan

R.Pitchammal, Aged 65 Yrs, Vs M.Rajarethinam, Aged 60 Yrs

Mani, Vs Kalyani