Allowed

N.Murugesan v. C.Murugesan

Madras HC8 Dec 2020CRP/4010/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, via vide conferencing, condoned delay for Civil Revision Petitions challenging an order setting aside an ex parte decree. The Court set aside the ex parte decree, restored the application, and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

The ex parte decree in O.S.No.375 of 2012 was set aside. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months.

N.Murugesan Vs C.Murugesan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.12.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶5

C.R.P.Nos.4010 and 4013 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.22196 of 2018

¶6

1.N.Murugesan
2.Kanniyappan
3.Annamalai
4.Shanmugam
5.Ashokan
6.Sudhakar
7.Sathish
8.Ramesh
9.Adikesavan .. Petitioners in both the C.R.Ps
Vs.
1.C.Murugesan
2.Arumugam
3.Palani
4.Jayaraman ..Respondents in both the C.R.Ps

¶7

PRAYER in C.R.P.No.4010 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the common fair and decreetal order dated 07.11.2017 passed in I.A.No.995 of 2017 in O.S.No.375 of 2012 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore.

¶8

PRAYER in C.R.P.No.4013 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the common fair and decreetal order dated 07.11.2017 passed in I.A.No.996 of 2017 in O.S.No.375 of 2012 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Kamaraj in both the CRPs For Respondents : Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar in both the CRPs

¶10

This matter is taken up for hearing through VideoConferencing.

¶11

Page numbers

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

2. The costs of Rs.15,000/- has been paid as per the order dated 04.11.2020. The delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree is condoned. The application to set aside the exparte decree in I.A.No.996 of 2017 was also dismissed by the trial court along with the application for condonation of delay. Now that the delay has been condoned. The I.A.No.996 of 2017 filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands restored. Instead of remitting the matter to the trial court and delaying the proceedings further, I am of the considered opinion that the said application could also be allowed and the exparte decree be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also has no objection for such a course being adopted to shorten the litigation.

¶14

Hence, I.A.No.996 of 2017 is allowed and the exparte decree made in O.S.No.375 of 2012 is set aside. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of resumption of the physical hearing in the court of Vellore and report the said disposal to this court.

¶15

The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar dsa To The learned Principal District Munsif, Vellore.

¶16

+1cc to Mr.R.Kamaraj, Advocate SR.39687 +1cc to Mr.G.Vinodhkumar, Advocate SR.39520

¶17

C.R.P.Nos.4010 and 4013 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.22196 of 2018

¶18

AJB(CO) CB(29/12/2020)

¶19

Page numbers

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Murugesan v. C.Murugesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Murugesan v. C.Murugesan

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

Alies Bessy Mathew Vs Eby Thomas

Subbathal Vs Smt. P. Kousalya @ Patel

S.Babu Vs the Principal Secretary

Nallusamy Vs Pappayee

A.Kumari, Vs S.M.Khaja Mohideen

M.Arthanarisami Vs Ponnusamy