Canara Bank v. Jagadish Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
The court condoned a 43-day delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte order. Consequently, the ex-parte order dated 12.08.2016 was set aside, and the hearing application was allowed.
What did the court decide?
The ex-parte order passed against the applicant/defendant on 12.08.2016 was set aside, and the subsequent application was allowed.
What the court decided
1
A. N o s . 61 4 3 & 61 4 2 of 20 1 6
IN
C. S . N o . 93 1 of 20 1 0
C. V . K A R T H I K E Y A N , J. A.No. 6143 of 2016 has been filed to condone the delay of 43 days to set
aside the ex-parte order passed against the applicant/first defendant in C.S.No. 931 of 2010 on 12.08.2016.
2. The reasons given for the delay of 43 days is that they came to
know about this fact on 2nd week of October and thereafter immediately taken
steps through the counsel. It is stated that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff.
4. Taking into account the reasons advanced, the delay in filing the application to set aside is condoned.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 43 days in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte order can be condoned? What is the consequence of condoning the delay?
Whether the ex-parte order passed against the applicant/defendant on 12.08.2016 should be set aside upon condonation of delay?
Parties & counsel
- applicant
A.Nos. 6143 & 6142 of 2016
- respondent
C.S.No. 931 of 2010
Coram
C. V. Karthikeyan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court