Allowed

Sellamuthu v. Nirmala

Madras HC9 Jan 2023CMA/492/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against an ex parte decree passed in a suit for partition. The court set aside the lower court order upon finding the appellants had justifiable reasons for non-appearance and remitted the suit for disposal with an opportunity for representation.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed; the impugned order and I.A.No.3 of 2019 were set aside; and O.S.No.1 of 2008 was remitted to be taken on file within three weeks.

Sellamuthu Vs Nirmala — Partition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.No.492 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.01.2023

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.492 of 2020

¶6

1.Sellamuthu

¶7

Pongaiammal

.. Appellants

Versus

1.Nirmala

2.Keerthana

.. Respondents

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43, Rule 1(d) r/w Regular Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Fair and Decretal Order dated 24.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in O.S.No.1 of 2008 on the file of Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal.

¶14

For Appellants : M/s.P.Veena Suresh For Respondents : No appearance

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The Appeal has been filed against the Fair and Decretal Order dated

¶17

24.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in O.S.No.1 of 2008 on the file of

¶18

Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal.

¶19

Notice served to the respondents through paper publications. Name

¶20

printed in the cause lists, none appeared on behalf of the respondents.

¶21

The necessary facts for determination of this appeal is whether the non

¶22

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

¶23

1/4

¶24

C.M.A.No.492 of 2020

¶25

appearance of the appellants/defendants has justifiable reasons. Initially, the suit was filed by the Respondents 1 and 2 for partition. The plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of one Mr.Chandrasekaran, who is the son of the appellants/defendants. The appellants herein are the defendants 1 and 2.

¶26

On the first round, the suit was dismissed for default and the I.A. was also dismissed. On appeal, the High Court has set aside the Order and remitted back to the Trial Court to dispose of the main suit within a time limit. Subsequently, the first appellant underwent knee surgery and could not appear, resulting in passing of the exparte decree which is impugned herein which I find in time. After going through the averments in the petition and also taking note of other issues in the written statement, I find that an opportunity has to be given to the appellants as it results to property dispute.

¶27

In the interest of justice, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered and the I.A.No.3 of 2019 in O.S.No.1 of 2008 is set aside. The O.S.No.1 of 2008 is ordered to be taken on file preferably within a period of three weeks

¶28

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

C.M.A.No.492 of 2020

¶30

from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶31

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.

¶32

09.01.2023

¶33

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order dhk To

¶34

The Presiding Officer, Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Court Namakkal

¶35

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

C.M.A.No.492 of 2020

¶37

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J,

dhk

C.M.A.No.492 of 2020

09.01.2023

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sellamuthu v. Nirmala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sellamuthu v. Nirmala

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

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Aarathal

Sivasankar Vs Siva Kumar

S.Duruvan Vs K.Babu

Subash Vs Singaram

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs M.Settu

J.Nagavalli Vs D.Eric Wilson