Dismissed

Seerangammal v. Chinnasamy

Madras HC11 Dec 2023CRP/2688/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a docket order that set aside an ex parte decree. The court held the trial court was correct in allowing the application under Order IX Rule 7 and directed the trial to be completed within three months due to the parties' advanced age.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. The trial is directed to be completed within three months.

Seerangammal Vs Chinnasamy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP.No. 2688 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 11.12.2023

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMIL SELVI

¶7

CRP.No. 2688 of 2022

Seerangammal

... Petitioner

Vs.

Chinnasamy ... Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C praying to set aside with cost the docket order dated 30.06.2022 in I.A.No.7 of 2022 in O.S.No.16 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettypalayam.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayan For Respondent : Mr. M.Guruprasad ORDER

¶14

The petitioner has filed this petition to set aside the docket order dated

¶15

30.06.2022 in I.A.No.7 of 2022 in O.S.No.16 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettypalayam.

¶16

Before the trial Court the defendant has filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, to set aside the ex-parte order and the same was allowed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved that the revision petitioner / plaintiff has preferred this revision.

¶17

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

¶18

CRP.No. 2688 of 2022

¶19

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that after setting aside the ex-parte decree, evidence was recorded and the case is now posted for Judgement. The defendant has no right to file any petition under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC. Instead, he should have filed petition under Order VII Rule 13 of CPC. Even as on date, the suit decree was not passed, therefore the petition filed under Order IX Rule 7 as such is maintainable and there is no irregularity found in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.

¶21

Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶22

Since, the parties on either side are more than 70 years old and the

¶23

defendant has also filed his written statement, the learned trial Judge is hereby directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

11.12.2023

¶25

Index : Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rri

¶26

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

CRP.No. 2688 of 2022

The III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettypalayam.

¶31

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.

¶32

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

¶33

CRP.No. 2688 of 2022

¶34

¶35

T.V.THAMIL SELVI, J.

¶36

rri

¶37

CRP.No. 2688 of 2022

¶38

11.12.2023

¶39

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

Seerangammal v. Chinnasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seerangammal v. Chinnasamy

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.K.Indrasekar Vs S.Velayutham

K.Nagalakshmi (Deceased)1. S.Sivaneela Vs S.Mala

Lakshmanan Mudaliar (Dead), 1.Kannammal Vs C.Rajammal

Prasuna Ginning Mills, Gnanapavaram Vs M/s.Kalyana Chakaravarthi Textiles Pvt.Ltd.

Prasuna Ginning Mills, Gnanapavaram Vs M/s.Kalyana Chakaravarthi Textiles Pvt.Ltd.

The District Collector Vs a.Chinnasamy