Dismissed

K.Sundarrajan v. S.Venmathi

Madras HC9 Feb 2017CRP/360/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed civil revision petitions filed against Delhi City Civil Court orders rejecting applications to condone substantial delays in setting aside an ex parte decree. The court held that the petitioners' reasons were insufficient and unsubstantiated, finding no infirmity warranting interference under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

K.Sundarrajan Vs S.Venmathi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.02.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

¶6

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.360 to 362 of 2017 & CMP.Nos.1630 to 1632 of 2017

¶7

K.Sundarrajan .... Petitioner in CRP No.360 of 2017 C.Arun Pandian .... Petitioner in CRP No.361 of 2017

¶8

Ayngaran Film International Media Private Limited, No.147/11, III Floor, Rajparis Trimeni Towers, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .... Petitioner in CRP No.362 of 2017

¶9

¶10

1.S.Venmathi 2.S.Sanjay(minor) 3.S.Sandhya(minor) 4.Raju ... Respondents in all Crps.

¶11

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the VI Additional City Civil Court at Chennai dismissing I.A.No.1367, 1368 & 1369 of 2016 respectively, in O.S.No.10827 of 2010 and to set aside the same.

¶12

¶13

For Petitioners(in all Crps.) : Mr.C.Selvakumar

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the VI Additional City Civil Court at Chennai dismissing I.A.No.1367, 1368 & 1369 of 2016 respectively, in O.S.No.10827 of 2010 and to set aside the same.

¶17

2.By a common order dated 06.09.2016, the applications in I.A.Nos.1367, 1368 & 1369 of 2016 filed by the defendants 4, 3 & 1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 601, 599 & 599 days respectively in filing the applications for setting aside the exparte decree passed on 26.02.2014 in O.S.No.10827 of 2010 have been dismissed.

¶18

3.The plaintiffs have laid a suit against the defendants for

¶19

compensation.

¶20

It is found that at the stage of the execution proceedings, the

¶21

petitioners have come out with the applications to set aside the exparte

¶22

¶23

decree passed against them. However, a delay of 601, 599 and 599 days had been occurred by then. Hence, they preferred the applications to condone the delay.

¶24

5.The reasons stated by the petitioners is that the person, who handled the above case has left the first defendant company and due to business pressure and political activity, they were unable to contact the counsel and give instruction to file set aside petitions.

¶25

6.The above reason given by the petitioners for condoning the delay is stoutly resisted by the respondents. It is contended that the petitions have been laid out by the petitioners only to delay the execution proceedings so as to deprive the plaintiffs from enjoying the fruits of the decree. The court below has found that the reasons stated by the petitioners for condoning the huge delay, do not constitute sufficient cause and also found that the reasons have not been substantiated by acceptable material. Accordingly, the court below has rejected the applications preferred by the petitioners. Considering

¶26

the reasons given by the court below in the impugned order, I do not find any infirmity to warrant any interference with reference to the same.

T.RAVINDRAN, J

7.Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed as devoid of

¶31

merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

09.02.2017

¶33

¶34

Index:yes/no Internet:yes

¶35

¶36

The VI Additional City Civil Court at Chennai

¶37

Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.360 to 362 of 2017

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

K.Sundarrajan v. S.Venmathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sundarrajan v. S.Venmathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Mohan Vs Rukkumaniammal

Dravidamani, Vs State of Tn.

Sellappa Gounder @ Sellappan Vs Nanjappa Gounder

A.Ramakrishnan Vs a.Madheswaran

K.Saraswathi Vs P.Palanisamy

Kriyasakthi,W/O.Parthiban Vs Parthiban,S/O.Puratchimani