High Court allowed revision dismissing ex parte decree setting aside application. Held trial court erred considering counsel delay in re-presentation. Dismissal not allowed, application allowed to file suit under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
Revised order of trial court set aside; application I.A.No.523 of 2010 allowed; directed to proceed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.
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(MD)No.1881 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 27.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P(MD)No.1881 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2011
1.Shanthi
2.Minor Saranya
3.Minor Manikandan ... Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants
(Petitioners 2 & 3 are rep. their mother and Guardian, the 1st petitioner herein)
Vs.
N.Swaminathan ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code as against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Pudukkottai in I.A.No.523 of 2010 in O.S.No.140 of 2005 dated 01.07.2011.
For Petitioners : Mrs.K.R.Shivasankari
For Respondent : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
O R D E R
The defendants in O.S.No.140 of 2005 are the petitioners. The revision is against an order dismissing their application seeking condonation of delay of 100 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.
1/3
CRP(MD)No.1881 of 2011
execution petition came to be filed in E.P.No.14 of 2009 and the judgment debtors namely, the petitioners had appeared in the execution proceedings on 06.03.2009. This demonstrates negligence on the part of the petitioners in prosecuting the application for condonation of delay. The trial court accepted the defence and dismissed their application. Hence, this revision.
2/3
CRP(MD)No.1881 of 2011
Sd/Assistant Registrar (crl side)
// True Copy //
/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
CM To:
1.The Sub Judge, Pudukkottai 2.The Section Officer(2 copies) VR Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.K.R.SHIVA SHANKARI, Advocate ( SR-2319[F] dated 29/01/2021 )
C.R.P(MD)No.1881 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2011 27.01.2021
VB (16.02.2021) 3P 5C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the application for condonation of delay by considering the delay in re-presentation due to counsel's mistake.
Whether the applicant had sufficient cause to condone a 100 days delay in filing a petition to set aside an ex-parte decree.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
University of Delhi Vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶24
2019 SCC online 1634 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shanthi
Minor Saranya
Minor Manikandan
N.Swaminathan
R.Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
