Dismissed

Muniyamuthu v. Kunju

Madras HC21 Sept 2023CRP(MD)/2740/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC. The petitioner sought to set aside an ex parte decree, arguing a 1952-day delay was due to a breached promise of suit withdrawal by the respondent. The Court found insufficient cause and no perversity in the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Muniyamuthu Vs Kunju — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD).No.2740 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.2740 of 2018

¶7

Muniyamuthu ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant

¶8

-vs-

¶9

Kunju ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C, against the order and decreetal order dated 03.10.2018 passed in I.A.No.967 of 2015 in O.S.No.111 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Kumbakonam.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pandian

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.B.Anandan

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner

¶15

under Section 115 of C.P.C, against the order and decreetal order dated 03.10.2018 passed in I.A.No.967 of 2015 in O.S.No.111 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Kumbakonam.

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.(MD).No.2740 of 2018

¶19

2. The petitioner herein is the Defendant and the respondent herein is

¶20

the plaintiff before the Court below.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the litigative status before the trial Court.

¶22

4. The brief facts which give rise to the present Civil Revision Petition are that the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction. It appears that the defendant, after receipt of summons, has not appeared before the Court below. As a result of which, an ex parte decree was passed on 11.06.2010. When the defendant has moved an application to set aside the ex parte decree, there was a delay of 1952 days. Hence, the defendant has filed an application to condone the delay of 1952 days, on the ground that after receipt of the summons, there was a negotiation, and that in such negotiation, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw the suit. However, contrary to his promise, he has not withdrawn the suit. Therefore, he would submit that the delay of 1952 days was neither wilful nor wanton. It is occurred only upon the breach of trust committed by the plaintiff.

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P.(MD).No.2740 of 2018

¶26

5. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would strongly object the said contention and would submit that there was no compromise between the plaintiff and the defendant and that there was no promise made by the plaintiff for withdrawal of suit.

¶27

6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.

¶28

7. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner herein has examined

¶29

three witnesses.

¶30

8. The learned counsel for the respondent would invite the attention of this Court in respect of the petitioner's evidence, wherein he has categorically admitted that after the receipt of summons, though he occasionally met the plaintiff, had no occasion to speak with him. It is also the further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the defendant has not approached the Court only upon the alleged promise given by P.W.2. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P.(MD).No.2740 of 2018

¶34

that the defendant has not proved the alleged settlement in pursuance of the

¶35

receipt of summons by the defendant, has to be accepted.

¶36

9. Furthermore, the Court below after elaborately gone into the factual position, has arrived at a conclusion that there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay and this Court could not find any perversity in the order.

¶37

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There

¶38

shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

21.09.2023

¶40

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶41

¶42

Th e Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.

¶43

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

¶44

4/5

¶45

C.R.P.(MD).No.2740 of 2018

¶46

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶47

ebsi

¶48

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.2740 of 2018

¶49

21.09.2023

¶50

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

Muniyamuthu v. Kunju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniyamuthu v. Kunju

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

N.Rajamani, S/O.Nataraja Vs P.Nallusamy

A.R.Hamsini Vs P.Prasanth Krishna

S.Jegathambal Vs P.Saravana Muthupanidan

C.Solai Alias Solaiappan Vs S.Palanisamy

Maheswaran, Vs Muthiah

Pitchaiah Vs Arun Mozhi Varman