Dismissed

N. Srinivasan, v. M/s.Telesys Info Infra(I) Ltd.

Madras HC27 Apr 2022A/2650/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay in an application to set aside an ex-parte order. The court held that both private and court notices were duly served on the judgment debtor at his registered address prior to the ex-parte order and the exparte setting aside application.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay to set aside ex-parte order was dismissed.

N. Srinivasan, Vs M/s.Telesys Info Infra(I) Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

¶5

THE MASTER

¶6

A.No. 2650 of 2021 in E.P.167 of 2018

¶7

M/s.Telesys Info Infra (I) Ltd, Represented by Mr.I.Kasi Srinivasulu New No.72, Old No,33, GTH Road, 1^st floor, T.Nagar, Chennai – 609 017.

¶8

(amended as per order date 16.09.2019 in application no 6840/19)

¶9

...Decree Holder -Vs.N.Srinivasan, S/o.TNU Nagarajan, No.24, Sivaji Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ....Judgment Debtor A.No. 2650 of 2021:- N.Srinivasan, S/o.TNU Nagarajan, No.24, Sivaji Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

¶10

.....Applicant -Vs.-

¶11

M/s.Telesys Info Infra (I) Ltd, Represented by Kasi Srinivasulu New No.72, Old No,33,

¶12

¶13

GTH Road, 1^st floor, T.Nagar, Chennai – 609 017.

¶14

.....Respondent

¶15

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 378 days in filing application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 09/01/2019 made in E.P.No.167 of 2018 before this Hon'ble Court.

¶16

This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing, the court made the following order:-

¶17

This is the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay in presenting the application to set aside the exparte order passed in E.P.No.167 of 2018 dated 09.01.2019.

¶18

The applicant/judgment debtor counsel reiterated his averments in the affidavit in support of his application. The learned counsel submitted that no notice was served on applicant/judgment debtor. Without serving notice, this Court passed an order setting him exparte. This applicant/judgment debtor came to know about the exparte order only when the warrant of attachment was affixed in the property. Hence, he has come forward with this application. Since no notice was served on him in the main execution petition, exparte order passed on 09.01.2019 has to be set aside and for that purpose, the delay in filing this application may be condoned.

¶19

The learned counsel of the respondent/decree holder submitted that notice was duly served on the applicant/judgment debtor. The

¶20

¶21

averments made in support of the application are all false. Therefore, this application has to be dismissed.

¶22

Now, the point to be decided is whether notice in the main

¶23

execution petition was served on the applicant/judgment debtor or not?

¶24

This Court carefully perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

This Court perused the affidavit of service submitted by the respondent/decree holder counsel. While serving the private notice on the applicant/judgment debtor, the private notice was taken by the respondent/decree holder counsel and it was sent to the address of the applicant/judgment debtor. The notice was taken on 12.10.2018. The postal receipt has been submitted along with delivery report in affidavit of service filed by the decree holder counsel. The item was delivered on 15.10.2018 in the applicant/judgment debtor's address mentioned in the execution petition. The delivery statement through track consignment was submitted by the decree holder counsel. The private notice was duly served on the address of the judgment debtor.

¶26

Further, the Court notice was sent through the bailiff of this Court

¶27

and the same was served on one Mrs.S.Krishnaveni on 18.12.2018 on the same address. The Court notice was also duly served on the address of applicant/judgment debtor. The bailiff has submitted the report of service before this Court. The perusal of these records would show that private

¶28

¶29

notice as well as court notice were duly served on the applicant/judgment debtor. The reason stated by the applicant that no notice was served on him is not acceptable.

¶30

The reason stated by the applicant for delay in filing the set aside application is not satisfactory. This court do not find any merits in the application filed by the applicant/judgment debtor. Therefore, this application is dismissed.

¶31

THE MASTER 27/04/2022 //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶32

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶33

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. EVK 07/07/2022

N. Srinivasan, v. M/s.Telesys Info Infra(I) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Srinivasan, v. M/s.Telesys Info Infra(I) Ltd.

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

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Saravana Raj Vs N.Ali Khan and 2 others

M/s.Soundararaja Mills Limited, Rep. by its Manager Mr.S.Kamaraj Vs M/s.Gail (India)Limited

M/s.Sun Tv Network Ltd. Vs M/s.Sri Thenandal Films

M/S Axon Engineering Vs Techpro Systems Limited

Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs M/s. Abhiram Infra Projects Pvt., Ltd., and 2 others

G.Indumathi Vs Nil