The Madras High Court allowed a single plaintiff applicant's prayer to restore a suit that had been dismissed against a second defendant, citing a change of counsel and the fact that the first defendant is defending the suit.
Application is ordered as prayed for to set aside the dismissal order and restore the suit to file against the second defendant.
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
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
A.No.6317 of 2018
in C.S.No.576 of 2014
Thiru.P.Janakiraman, Civil Engineering Contractor, PJR Square, No.8B, 3rd Floor, Sivashanmugam Street, West Tambaram, Chennai 600 045
... Applicant/Plaintiff
-Versus-
Higways Department, Represented by Divisional Engineer (Highways), Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division – 2 Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
A.No.6317 of 2018
Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order to set-aside the order dated 16.07.2015 and restore the abvoe suit to file as against the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant in C.S.No.576 of 2014 may not be passed.
This Application coming on this day before this court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for hearing, the court made the following order:
2
Sole plaintiff is the lone applicant herein. Defendants 1 and 2 in the main suit are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the instant application. The suit was dismissed against the second defendant for not taking steps and serving suit summons on the second defendant.
“To set aside the order dated 16.07.2015 and restore the above suit to file as against the 2nd respondent / 2nd defendant in C.S.No.576 of 2014” 3. The circumstances under which the suit came to be dismissed as against the second defendant and reasons which support the instant prayer has been articulated in Paragraph 4 of the affidavit, which reads as follows:
“ 4. I submit that I engaged one Mr.M.D.Subramanian as my counsel to file the said C.S.No.576 of 2014. I submit that the 1st defendant has served written statement during April 2015 to my present counsel, along with an application for condoning delay in filing the same. However the said application has not been brought for orders by the respondents. I submit that I was waiting for the outcome of the above proceedings. On verification of the suit register during June 2018 about the written statement of the 2nd defendant we came to know that the suit has been dismissed as against the 2nd respondent/Defendant on 16.07.2015. Immediately, the same was intimated to me, and the present application is filed to restore the
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suit to file as against the 2nd defendant.”
3
for the plaintiff, more so owing to demise of the erstwhile counsel for the plaintiff and considering the
fact that the instant application has now been filed
coupled with the obtaining position that the first defendant in any event is defending the suit, I am of the view that the prayer in this application deserves to be acceded to.
Application is ordered as prayed for.
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the th day of 2018.
KY/31.08.2018 COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a single plaintiff seeking restoration of a suit dismissed against a co-defendant can be granted relief considering a change of counsel and ongoing defense by another defendant.
P.Janakiraman
Government of Tamil Nadu Highways Department
Government of Tamil Nadu Higways Department
M.Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
