The High Court dismissed a civil suit seeking to set aside an ex-parte DRT decree and grant injunction against bank defendants without representation from the plaintiffs, stating the plaintiff is not interested in proceeding.
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 : 22.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYA N
C.S.No.490 of 2009
And
A.No. 2571 of 2009 O.A.No. 606 of 2009
A.No. 6378 of 2009
... Plaintiffs
Vs.
4. S.Rajeswari
(4th defendant impleaded as party defendant as per order of Court dated 23.08.2010 in A.No. 5371/2009 and extended by an order dated 18.11.2010 in A.No. 6378 of 2009).
2
... Defendants
PRAYER : This Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 O.S. Rules and Order VII Rule 1 and Order I Rule 8(1) CPC and Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, praying for the following reliefs:
(a) setting aside the instrument, namely the exparte decree dated 14.08.2001 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal -II, Chennai, for a sum of Rs.49,92,722.03 in O.A.No. 648/2001 (Old O.A.No. 1387/1998 DRT:-I, Chennai), as the same was obtained by misrepresentation, suppression of vital material facts, and is tainted with illegality;
(b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from enforcing the exparte decree dated 14.08.2001 obtained in O.A.No. 648 of 2001 against the registered owners, namely the plaintiffs' and others properties, who were not the parties to the said decree; and
(c) directing the defendants to pay the costs of this suit.
For Plaintiff : No appearance
JUDGMENT
No representation for the plaintiff on the previous occasion. The matter has
been posted today under the caption 'for dismissal' after sufficient opportunity had
3
been given. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the plaintiff.
2. It is clear that the plaintiff is not interested in proceeding with the
suit. Hence, this Civil Suit is dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently,
connected applications are closed.
22.11.2016
vsg
4
C.V.KARTHIKE YA N , J.
vsg
C.S.No.490 of 2009
And A.No. 2571 of 2009 O.A.No. 606 of 2009 A.No. 6378 of 2009
22.11.2016
5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil suit should be dismissed for non-prosecution in the absence of plaintiff's appearance.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
K.S. Rangachari
P.S. Suganthi
Indian Bank Dr. Alagappa Road Branch Purasawalkam, Chennai
Indian Bank Asset Recovery Management Branch, Chennai
K. Kamalanathan
S. Rajeswari
C.V. Karthikeya N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
