Allowed

Raj Television Network Limited v. Sun Tv Network Limited and 3 others

Madras HC7 Sept 2021A/3123/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the 4th defendant's application to set aside an ex parte decree passed on 08.03.2017. It found sufficient cause due to non-service of summons and omission from the cause list, directing the plaintiff to serve summon and granting time to file a written statement.

What did the court decide?

Ex parte decree dated 08.03.2017 set aside; plaintiff directed to serve summons; 4th defendant granted four weeks to file written statement.

Raj Television Network Limited Vs Sun Tv… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.No.3123 of 2021 in C.S.No.402 of 2011

¶2

A.No.3123 of 2021 in

¶3

C.S.No.402 of 2011

¶4

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶5

This application has been filed by the 4^th defendant in this suit seeking to set aside the exparte decree that was granted on 08.03.2017. This application was preceded by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1579 days in seeking seeking to set aside the exparte decree. The reasons assigned are that the 4^th defendant was subsequently impleaded in the suit. Despite such impleading, the suit summons were not served and the names of the 4^th defendant or its counsel was not printed in the cause list on the date, when the defendants were actually set exparte and on the date when the exparte decree came to be passed.

¶6

It is also the claim of the applicant that despite specific direction by this Court for trial of this suit along with another suit in C.S.No.53 of 2011, these suits were posted separately, which resulted in the exparte decree. The records also reveal that the suit summons were never served on the 4^th defendant in the suit, after its impleading. The cause list of the relevant dates also demonstrate that the name of the counsel for the 4^th defendant was not printed in the cause list, when the 4^th defendant was actually set exparte and, on the subsequent date, when the exparte judgment came to be passed. I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out sufficient cause for non-appearance on the fateful day. Hence, this application is allowed, the exparte decree dated 08.03.2017 is set aside.

¶7

1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶8

A.No.3123 of 2021 in C.S.No.402 of 2011

¶9

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶10

KKN

¶11

3.Since the suit is one for copyright infringement and the parties claim under the same title holder, the decree becomes an indivisible decree and therefore, it has to be set aside in its entirety. Therefore, the entire decree is set aside, the learned counsel for the plaintiff is directed to serve the suit summons on the counsel for the 4^th defendant, who has entered appearance, in terms of Order 4 Rule 7 Sub-rule 3 of the Original Side Rules. Upon such service, the 4^th defendant is granted four weeks time from the date of service to file written statement.

¶12

07.09.2021

¶13

kkn/ata

¶14

A.No.3123 of 2021 in C.S.No.402 of 2011

¶15

2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Raj Television Network Limited v. Sun Tv Network Limited and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Television Network Limited v. Sun Tv Network Limited and 3 others

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

M/S.N.Ranga Rao and Sons Vs Koyas Perfumery Works

.L.G.Varadarajulu Vs Minit Engineers (I) P.Ltd.

Vs

Agrigold Foods and Farms Vs M/S.Hiluck Polyesters Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Indo Overseas Films Rep.by Vs Jarden Electronics Rep.by Its

M.M.Sheik Dawood Vs M/S.Goel International Pvt. Ltd.