Single judge order dismissing the revision petition challenging the dismissal of an ex parte application seeking permission to record evidence of payment after limitation under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
None. The application under Order XXI Rule (2-A) was held not maintainable and the revision petition is dismissed with no costs.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :01.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
CRP (NPD)No.1553 of 2016 and
CMP.No.8416 of 2016
Chennai-600 079.
Perumal ... Respondent
Prayer:- Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2015 passed in E.A.No.1504 of 2015 in E.A.No.426 of 2014 in E.P.No.3961 of 2012 in O.S.No.121 of 2003 on the file of IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali For Respondent : Mr.L.Dhamodaran
2
ORDER
This revision challenges the order of learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai passed in E.A.No.1504 of 2015 in E.A.No.426 of 2014 in E.P.No.3961 of 2012 in O.S.No.121 of 2003, dismissing the application filed under Section 94 (e) R/W 151 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking to permit the petitioner to mark the voucher dated 23.12.2010 through P.W.1.
3
2015, the present revision petition has been filed.
Mr..L.Dhamodharan, learned counsel for respondents.
4
C.T.SELVAM, J
arr
Chennai is not maintainable.
01.06 .2016
Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No arr
To
The IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
CRP (PD)No.1553 of 2016
5
01.06.2016
6
Crl.R.C.Nos.937 and 938 of 2007
03.07.2013
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for recording satisfaction of decretal amount out of time falls within the exclusion in Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding Order XXI applications.
Whether the revision against the dismissal of the application to record voucher evidence is maintainable in law.
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Indusethia Finance Limited, Rep. by its Proprietor
Pradip Kumar Sethia
Perumal
C.T.Selvam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
