Civil Revision Petition allowed setting aside fair and final order dismissing application to condone delay for setting aside ex-parte preliminary decree in partition suit, granting third defendant opportunity to contest on merits.
Set aside the fair and decreetal order and allowed the application in I.A.No.12322 of 2002 to set aside the ex-parte preliminary decree.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :08.12.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
C.R.P.(NPD)No.850 of 2003 and CMP No.8930 of 2003
G. Natarajan
.. Petitioner/Petitioner/
3 rd Defendant ]
vs
1.Harikrishnan
2.Viswanathan .. Respondents/Respondents/
Plaintiffs
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure against the order and decreetal order dated
23.01.2003 in I.A.No.12322 of 2002 in O.S.No.9860 of 1987 on the file
of IX Assistant City Civil Court, Madras.
For Petitioner : Mr.T. Viswanatha Rao
For respondents : No appearance
ORDER
Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.12322 of
2002 in O.S.No.9860 of 1987 on the file of IX Assistant City Civil
Court, Madras, the third defendant has filed the above Civil Revision
Petition.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay by 79 days in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree causes undue hardship and serves the interest of justice.
Whether lack of service of summons in the main suit necessitated setting aside the ex-parte preliminary decree.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G. Natarajan
Harikrishnan
Viswanathan
M. Duraishwamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
