The Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, holding it not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative remedy via appeal. The petitioner was directed to approach the appellate court.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; liberty to approach the Appellate Court to file appeal; time spent excluded for limitation.
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: 07.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1414 of 2014
M/s.UCO Bank,
Rep.by its Chief Manager M.Rajamohan,
S/o.M.Marimuthu,
T.Nagar Branch,
No.67 Burkit Road,
Ground Floor, T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.M/s.Sathayam,
Rep.by its Proprietor,
Mr.R.Murugesan,
Old No.32A, New No.62A,
Veerabadran Street,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.Mrs.K.Sathya ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, to
set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed in
I.A.No.4497 of 2013 in O.S.No.8502 of 2011 by the Hon'ble XIII
Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Suthakar
For Respondents : Mr.V.K.SenthilKumar
O R D E R
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair http://www.judis.nic.in and decreetal order dated 04.12.2013 passed by the XIII Assistant City
2
Civil Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.4497 of 2013 in O.S.No.8502 of 2011.
2.The petitioner had filed above suit to recover the loan amount of Rs.5,52,020/- from the respondents together with interest and cost.
3.After the suit was filed the defendants/respondents also filed their written statement. However, on 27.08.2012 the defendants/respondents filed a memo along with an order of DRT-II. Recording the Memo of the defendants'/respondents' evidence was closed and the suit was dismissed.
representation for the plaintiff/petitioner. The plaintiff argument was closed after pursuing the record, the judgment was delivered on same day.
5.It is noticed of the judgment was passed on merits and not dismissed the suit for non-prosecution, even though, the petitioner was not present at the time of hearing.
6.Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2012, the petitioner had filed I.A for condoning the delay 133 days in filing the petition for restoration and to set aside the judgment and decree dated http://www.judis.nic.in
3
on 27.08.2012. This application was dismissed by the Court which is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.
7.The Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2012 passed by the lower Court.
8.Consequently, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed to
while giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Court. Needless to say the time spent before the Lower Court and before this Court shall stand excluded for computation of limitation.
number it and take it up on merit and dispose it in accordance with law.
10.The present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with above directions. No costs.
07.03.2019
Index:Yes/No Internet :Yes/No
jen
4
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jen
To
The XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1414 of 2014
07.03.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of appeal.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application for condonation of delay was correct in law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. UCO Bank
M/s. Sathayam
Mrs. K. Sathya
C. Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
