Perumal v. Chinnasamy
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition setting aside an order denying a prayer to condone a 124-day delay in setting aside an ex-parte order. The Court directed the trial court to dispose of the property suit within three months due to the respondent's age.
What did the court decide?
The order dated 15.12.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.120 of 2018 is set aside; the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed; the ex-parte order is reopened.
What the court decided
C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.462 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.R.P.(NPD) No.462 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.4075 of 2021
1.Perumal
2.Loganathan ...Petitioners
Vs.
Chinnasamy ...Respondent
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 15.12.2020
made in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.120 of 2018, on the file of the
Additional District Court, Dharmapuri.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Rameshkumar For Respondent : Mr.Arun Anbumani
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.120 of 2018.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside an order condoning delay in filing a petition to set aside an ex-parte decree should be allowed.
How to manage proceedings given the advanced age of the respondent.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Perumal
- petitioner
Loganathan
- respondent
Chinnasamy
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court