Partly allowed

Karupayee v. Indirani

Madras HC13 Oct 2023CRP(MD)/1816/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the condonation of a 665-day delay in applying to set aside an ex-parte decree. The High Court affirmed the order imposing costs, directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000, and ordered the trial Court to set aside the decree and dispose of the suit within three months.

What did the court decide?

The ex-parte decree is to be set aside; the trial shall be disposed of within three months; costs of Rs.5,000 to be paid by the respondent.

Karupayee Vs Indirani — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.1816 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1816 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.9059 of 2023

¶7

Karuppayee : Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Indirani : Respondent/Petitioner/Defendant

¶10

Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 17.10.2022 made in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.708 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Jegan Manohar For Respondent : Mr.K.Kalimuthu

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.708 of 2013 on the file of the learned II

¶14

Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy, dated 17.10.2022, condoning the

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶16

C.R.P.(MD)No.1816 of 2023

¶17

delay of 665 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 25.01.2018.

¶18

It is seen from the records that the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy, after conducting enquiry, has passed the conditional order, directing the respondent/petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.3,500/- on or before 04.11.20223, failing which, the petition shall stand dismissed.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/petitioner has not complied with the order of this Court and subsequently, she has filed an application for extension of time. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has refused to receive the cost alleging that they have decided to challenge the impugned order, the respondent deposited the amount before the concerned Court.

¶20

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defendants 2 to 5 entered into appearance and the second defendant was representing the minor defendants 4 and 5 and that subsequently, without filing the written

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶22

C.R.P.(MD)No.1816 of 2023

¶23

statement, they have remained ex-parte and that the learned trial Judge has proceeded to examine the petitioner/plaintiff and passed the preliminary decree and that after the defendant was set ex-parte, no steps were taken to appoint any guardian for the minor defendants 4 and 5.

¶24

5.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that when

¶25

the minor defendants were not represented, the order of the trial Court in setting them ex-parte and proceeded to pass ex-parte decree is not legally valid and as such the order of the trial Court in condoning the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree, cannot be found fault with.

¶26

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly concede that the way in which the ex-parte decree was passed against the minor defendants, is not proper, but at the same, considering the length of delay, the respondent may be directed to pay heavy cost.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the facts that the minor defendants were not represented earlier and the reasons assigned for the delay, the order of the learned trial Judge in

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶29

C.R.P.(MD)No.1816 of 2023

¶30

condoning the delay, by imposing costs cannot be found fault with. But at the same time, considering the other facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already filed the final decree petition, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/as costs to the petitioner on or before 08.11.2023. On payment of cost, taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, the trial Court is hereby directed to set aside the ex-parte decree and proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit in O.S.No.708 of 2013 within a period of three months thereafter. The parties are directed to appearing before the concerned Court on 15.11.2023.

¶31

With the above observation and directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous

¶32

Petition is closed.

¶33

13.10.2023

¶34

NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No das

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶36

C.R.P.(MD)No.1816 of 2023

¶37

¶38

1.The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy.

¶39

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶41

C.R.P.(MD)No.1816 of 2023

¶42

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶43

das

¶44

Order made in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1816 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.9059 of 2023

¶45

Dated : 13.10.2023

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

Karupayee v. Indirani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karupayee v. Indirani

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

Jayden Adhip Vs J. Lixio Leno

Periyasamy Gounder @ Appavu (Died) 1. Periyathambi Vs Periyasamy Gounder

Swaminathan Vs Vigneshwari

S.T.R.Sundaravadivel Vs S.Kathiresan

M.Sasikumar Vs Veera Rasu

Esthar Helan Ezhilarasi Vs Ramanapriya Alias Engeline Priya