Devaraji v. Sivaraji
Case brief
What is this about?
A single judge allowed a civil revision petition to set aside a trial court’s dismissal of an application to condone an 895-day delay in filing an O.9 Rule 13 petition to set aside an ex-parte decree, citing the need for substantial justice over strict limitation rules.
What did the court decide?
Civil revision petition allowed; petitioner directed to pay Rs. 5,000 costs; trial court directed to pass orders on set-aside petition within one month.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 02.02.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
CRP(NPD)No.1041 of 2011
Devaraji .. Petitioner
Vs.
Sivaraji .. Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of the learned District Munsif, Thirupathur, Vellore District in I.A.No.699 of 2008 in O.S.No.561 of 2004 dated 26.08.2009.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan For Respondent : No Appearance
O R D E R
The first defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner, filed this civil revision petition as against the order of dismissal of his section 5 application made in I.A.No.699 of 2008 in O.S.No.561 of 2004 dated 26.08.2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Tirupathur, Vellore District.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be viewed in a liberal and lenient manner to do substantial justice despite a long delay.
Whether the High Court can allow the condonation of delay to give an opportunity to set aside an ex-parte decree even if it causes inconvenience to the other party.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Devaraji
- respondent
Sivaraji
Coram
M.V.Muralidaran
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court