Dismissed

Aarpulingam v. Sekar

Madras HC18 Apr 2023CRP(MD)/1018/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 challenging the rejection of an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The court held the revision premature as the petitioners had not filed an application to condone delay before the lower court, granting liberty to do so.

What did the court decide?

Liberty given to file application for condoning delay to set aside ex parte decree before the court below.

Aarpulingam Vs Sekar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2021

¶7

1.Aarpulingam, S/o.Sathasivam 2.Periyakaruppan, S/o.Yegambaram Servaikarar .. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.Sekar, S/o.Thangasamy Aasari 2.The Tahsildar, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Avudaiyarkovil, Pudukkottai District.

¶10

3.The Revenue Divisional officer, Aranthangi Divisional Office, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

4.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 5.The District Collector, Pudukkottia, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

6.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Avudaiyarkovil Panchayat Union, Avudaiyarkovil, Pudukkottai District.

¶13

7.The Sub-Registrar, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District. .. Respondents

¶14

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

¶15

1/5

¶16

C.R.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2021

¶17

Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 13.12.2019, passed in unnumbered I.A.No. ... of 2019 in O.S.No.338 of 2017, by the learned Sub Judge, Aranthangi.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Paranjothi For R1 : Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai For R2 to R7 : Mr.G.Sivaraja Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 13.12.2019, passed in unnumbered I.A.No. ... of 2019 in O.S.No.338 of 2017, by the learned Sub Judge, Aranthangi.

¶21

2.The petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.338 of 2017 before the Sub Court, Aranthangi. The first petitioner/first defendant filed his written statement on 13.07.2018. However, the petitioners failed to appear before the Trial Court on 05.08.2019 and therefore, they were set ex parte. Thereafter, the Trial Court has proceeded to decree the suit ex parte on 05.08.2019. Hence, the petitioners filed unnumbered I.A.No..... of 2019 to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 05.08.2019. However, the learned Sub Judge, Aranthangi, has rejected the said application. Challenging the same, the petitioners have come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶22

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

¶23

2/5

¶24

C.R.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2021

¶25

3.There is no merit in the present Civil Revision Petition, as it is prematured.

¶26

Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioners to file an appropriate application for condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 05.08.2019. On such application being filed for condoning the delay, the Court below shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. In case, the delay is condoned, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 05.08.2019, which has been returned, may be numbered and appropriate orders may be passed. No costs.

¶27

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No smn2

¶28

18.04.2023

¶29

Note:- Registry is directed to return all the original documents filed along with this revision after getting attesting copies of the same.

¶30

¶31

1.The Sub Judge, Aranthangi.

¶32

2.The Tahsildar, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Avudaiyarkovil, Pudukkottai District.

¶33

3.The Revenue Divisional officer, Aranthangi Divisional Office, Pudukkottai District.

¶34

4.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

¶35

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

¶36

3/5

¶37

C.R.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2021

¶38

5.The District Collector, Pudukkottia, Pudukkottai District.

¶39

6.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Avudaiyarkovil Panchayat Union, Avudaiyarkovil, Pudukkottai District.

¶40

7.The Sub-Registrar, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

¶41

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

¶42

4/5

¶43

C.R.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2021

¶44

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶45

smn2

¶46

Order made in C.R.P.(MD)No.1018 of 2021

¶47

18.04.2023

¶48

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

¶49

5/5

Aarpulingam v. Sekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarpulingam v. Sekar

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

A. Saraswathi Vs J. Muniyammal

M.R.Ganesh Vs S. Balamurugan

Muthayan, Vs Palani Chikku Gounder

Sathya Vs Ponmanickam

B. Shupriya Vs R. Saravanan

Sindhujagaayathiri, Vs Ravi