This revision petition challenged the order rejecting a plaintiff's request to eschew its own summons for judgment. The High Court found no error in the trial court's procedure regarding the sequence of notices and dismissed the petition.
The civil revision petition, connected miscellaneous petition, and the impugned memo were dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.11.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3691 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.24286 of 2019
V.Sivasubramanian
... Petitioner
-Vs-
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 01.10.2019 in the Memo in O.S.No.5366 of 2018, on the file of the learned XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Chandrasekaran
This revision petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 01.10.2019 in the Memo in O.S.No.5366 of 2018, on the file of the learned XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
“On perusal of records, it reveals that the 1st defendant filed his Vakalath on 28.01.2019 and adjourned the case to 26.02.2019 for notice of appearance and summons for judgment. As per provisions of Order 37 of CPC, after giving notice of appearance by the defendants only the plaintiff has to file a summons for judgment. In this case, inadvertently this Court simultaneously ordered notice of appearance and summons for judgment on 28.01.2019 and case was adjourned to 26.02.2019. Subsequently, D1 filed affidavit of service for his notice of appearance on 18.03.2019 and case was adjourned to 03.04.2019 for summons for judgment. On 03.04.2019, the plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Service of Summons for judgment and it was duly served to D1 and on the day itself D1 filed a petition for leave to defend the suit and the same was returned for certain defects. Subsequently, that petition was numbered as I.A.No.2/19 on 15.07.2019 and the same is pending for counter. On that day itself, the plaintiff filed this memo.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy// https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sub Assistant Registrar
KST To
The XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
C.R.P.(PD) No.3691 of 2019 A.SK(19/12/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order rejecting a plaintiff's memo to eschew the summons for judgment filed under Order XXXVII of CPC.
Whether the trial court erred in sequencing the issuance of notice of appearance and summons for judgment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Sivasubramanian
First Defendant
R. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
