Allowed

Dr.P.Sundarraj v. a.S.Pandurangan Chettiar

Madras HC14 Feb 2019CRP/1484/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an ex-parte order permitting amendment of a plaint due to alleged clerical error regarding the date. The High Court found no merit, ruling the order was not ex-parte as no objection was raised previously. Liberty was granted to file an additional written statement, and the suit was directed to be disposed of within one year.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file additional written statement; suit directed to be disposed of within one year; connected MP closed.

Dr.P.Sundarraj Vs a.S.Pandurangan Chettiar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.02.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.1484 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
1.Dr.P.Sundarraj
2.Balasaraswathi alias Saraswathi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.A.S.Pandurangan Chettiar
2.A.P.Udayashankar
3.A.P.Udayakumar
4.Kalaiselvi ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to direct the Learned Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court No. III, Coimbatore to number the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.687 of 2013 in O.S.No.589 of 2009 on the file of Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court No. III, Coimbatore.

¶8

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to against

¶9

the exparte order dated 12.11.2013 in I.A.No.687 of 2013, to permit the respondents/plaintiffs amend the plaint.

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

2.The case was listed for hearing before the lower Court on 24.10.2013. On the said date the counsel for the petitioners had sought time. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 29.10.2013.

¶13

3.The case was thereafter adjourned to 07.11.2013. On 07.11.2013, however there was no representation for the petitioners. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 12.11.2013.

¶14

4.On 12.11.2013 again there was no representation and therefore the order came to be passed allowing amendment, which has been challenged in the Civil Revision Petition, on the ground, that the counsel appearing for the petitioners had wrongly noted down the date. Therefore, it was submitted that the prejudice will be caused by the petitioners if the suit proceeds based on the amendment to the plaint. The petitioner therefore, filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 7, read with Section 151 of CPC was returned

¶15

with the following observation:-

¶16

“Returned:-

¶17

The Order Passed on 07.11.2013 is not an exparte order. But it is passed as no objection was raised to the petition. Hence Rtd.”

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

I find no merit to allow present the Civil Revision Petition.

¶21

The respondent had filed an application for amendment before the commencement of Trial. The petitioner is therefore entitled to file additional written statement and raise all defences that are available.

¶22

6.Therefor while dismissing the present C.R.P, liberty is given

¶23

to the petitioner to file additional written statement and to raise the defence that are available.

¶24

7.The suit is of the year 2009. The Lower Court is therefore directed to take up the suit and dispose it with in a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

8.The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with above observations. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶26

14.02.2019

¶27

Index:Yes/No Internet :Yes/No jen

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.SARAVANAN, J.

jen

The Learned Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court No. III, Coimbatore.

¶34

C.R.P.(PD).No.1484 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶35

14.02.2019

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

Dr.P.Sundarraj v. a.S.Pandurangan Chettiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.P.Sundarraj v. a.S.Pandurangan Chettiar

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

Mrs.J.Sarala Vs Mrs.B.v.Loganayaki

Elumalai Vs Vediayappan

Elumalai Vs Vediayappan

Arokiya Famila Vs G.Johnson

E.Subramanian Vs Desathi Balija Kula Kavarai

Venkatesalu Vs Kondaiah