In this civil revision petition, the court allowed the petition to set aside the dismissal of an application to condone delay in challenging an ex-parte decree. It directed the trial court to complete the trial on merits within six months.
Impugned order set aside; IA allowed with cost of Rs.1,000/-; suit to be disposed of on merits within six months.
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.
CRP(NPD)No.544 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 17.12.2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 22.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
CRP(NPD)No.544 of 2017 (Through Video Conferencing) Manikandan Petitioner Vs Puthu Maramman Trust by its President C.Shanmugasethuramasamy, Tirupur Respondent Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated, 07.10.2016, made in IA.No.45 of 2015 in OS.No.265 of 2011, by the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Mozhi For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran
ORDER
CRP(NPD)No.544 of 2017
on 03.03.2014 and on that day, since the 3rd Defendant was absent, he was set exparte and the trial commenced with the other Defendants and a judgement and decree was passed on merits on 01.11.2014. Hence, the 3rd Defendant has filed the present application to condone the delay of 36 in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree passed against him. By the impugned order, the said application application was dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
CRP(NPD)No.544 of 2017
permanent injunction. The Petitioner alone is contesting the matter. Moreover, the Petitioner has filed medical records, such as discharge summary and the First Information Report, to show that he had suffered severe spinal card injuries in the accident, which disabled the Petitioner to proceed with the trial, thus causing the delay.
thereafter. No costs.
22.12.2020
Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm
To
CRP(NPD)No.544 of 2017
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
Srcm
Pre-Delivery Order in
CRP(NPD)No.544 of 2017
22.12.2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree can be condoned given medical incapacity.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the condonation delay application should be set aside to afford opportunity for trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.P.Srivastava Vs. R.K.Raizada and othersReferred¶16
2000 3 SCC 54 · Who else cites this
H.Dohil Construction Company Vs. Nahar Exports LimitedReferred¶17
2015 1 SCC 680 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manikandan
Puthu Maramman Trust
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
