Allowed

Mr.P.Sampath v. v.Ramalingam

Madras HC5 Feb 2019CRP/2316/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to pay the balance decreed amount to set aside the earlier dismissal of the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition allowed; directed petitioner to pay balance decretal amount within four weeks to set aside impugned order; case remanded to merit.

Mr.P.Sampath Vs v.Ramalingam — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.02.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

C.R.P(NPD) No.2316 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
P.Sampath .. Petitioner
vs
V.Ramalingam .. Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order dated 10.04.2014 passed in I.A.No.163 of 2014 in O.S.No.278 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vidhya

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This civil revision petition is directed against the impugned fair and

¶12

decretal order dated 10.04.2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arni,

¶13

in I.A.No.163 of 2014 in O.S.No.278 of 2010 .

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

¶16

The revision petitioner is the defendant. The respondent/plaintiff

¶17

filed the suit for recovery of money. The suit was decreed exparte on 25.07.2011. Purusant to which, the respondent has also filed an execution petition in the year 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.163 of 2014 to condone the delay of 931 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree and that application was dismissed on the ground that the

¶18

delay has not been properly explained.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶20

was suffering from diabetes and therefore, could not take steps to defend the

¶21

case therefore prayed for the delay to be condoned. The petitioner has

¶22

already deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- and he states that he is also willing to deposit the balance decreed amount.

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the diabetes

¶24

is not a disease and therefore there is no necessity to condone the delay. The

¶25

petitioner filed an execution petition in E.P.No.15 of 2013 to execute the decree amount of Rs.40,473/-. This Court by an order dated 03.07.2014, ordered interim stay on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the credit of E.P.No.15 of 2013 in O.S.No.278 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arni.

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for both

¶29

sides, this Court directs the petitioner shall pay the balance decreed amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the learned District Munsif, Arni, Tiruvannamalai

¶30

District shall take up the case and decide on merits, within a period of three

¶31

months thereafter.

¶32

The civil revision petition is allowed with the above observation. No
cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶33

05.02.2019
Speaking : Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kkd
To

¶34

The District Munsif Court,

¶35

Arni, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.SARAVANAN,J.

kkd

C.R.P(NPD) No.2316 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶41

23.10.2018

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

Mr.P.Sampath v. v.Ramalingam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.P.Sampath v. v.Ramalingam

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

N.Gurusamy, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.S.Vijayakumar, Vs the Disrict Manager

Mariappan Memorial- Vs the Director of Matriculation-

P.S.Govindarajan Vs Chandrammal

Nallappan Vs M.Palanisamy

Dhanraj Kochar Vs Thirumuruga Real Estate