Disposed

M/S.Rayyaan Architects v. Sreelatha

Madras HC10 Mar 2017CRP/876/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition where the plaintiff challenged the trial court's order allowing notice before deciding an application to set aside an ex-parte order. The court directed the trial court to decide the Order IX Rule 7 application first.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to decide the Order IX Rule 7 application before other applications.

M/S.Rayyaan Architects Vs Sreelatha — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 10.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.876 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.4283 of 2017

¶7

M/s.Rayyaan Architects, rep by Managing Partner, Mohamed Hayas, No.23, 1^st Floor, 1^st Street, Sait Colony, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Dr.Sreelatha 2.Dr.Murugappan ... Respondents

¶11

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and order dated 23.12.2016 made in I.A.No.17071 of 2016 in O.S.No.3486 of 2014 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.17071 of 2016 in O.S.No.3486

¶15

of 2014 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶16

¶17

2.The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.3486 of 2014 for recovery of

¶18

money.

¶19

3.The defendants filed their written statement and are contesting the

¶20

suit.

¶21

4.When the suit was taken up for trial, since the defendants failed to appear before the trial Court, they were set exparte and an exparte order was passed, closing the evidence on the side of the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants filed applications in I.A.No.17071 of 2016 to reopen the evidence of P.W.1, I.A.No.17072 of 2016 to recall P.W.1 for cross examination and I.A.No.17073 of 2016, under Order IX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the expare order dated 08.12.2016.

¶22

5.Now, the grievance of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the trial Court, without ordering Order IX Rule 7 application in I.A.No.17073 of 2016, ordered notice in the other two applications. Admittedly, the suit is in the trial stage and in order to avoid further delay, all the applications can be decided at once.

¶23

¶24

6.However, since the defendants were set exparte on 08.12.2016, the trial Court is directed to decide the application in I.A.No.17073 of 2016 filed under Order IX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, first and thereafter, decide the other two applications.

¶25

7.In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed in I.A.No.17071 of 2016 ordering notice to the respondents/defendants.

¶26

8.With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶27

No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

Index : No Internet : Yes va

¶29

10.03.2017

¶30

¶31

The VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

M.DURAISWAMY,J.

C.R.P.(PD).No.876 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.4283 of 2017

¶37

10.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in

M/S.Rayyaan Architects v. Sreelatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Rayyaan Architects v. Sreelatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnamurthy Vs Selvaraj

T.K.Mohan Vs K.Ravichandran

Mr.E.Marimuthu Vs Mrs.G.Nithila

Usha Rani Vs Muthuraj

A.Thiyagarajan Vs J.Selvaramya

P.Murugasundari Vs J.Sakthivel