High Court set aside an order dismissing an ex parte decree application. The court found the petitioner was not negligent as counsel shifted practices. Petitioner to pay Rs.50,000 to respondents and file memo before Trial Court to resume trial.
Petitioner to pay Rs.50,000 to respondents within four weeks; ex parte order set aside; trial to resume within nine months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P(MD)No.419 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.04.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P(MD)No.419 of 2023
Christopher ...Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/ 1st Defendant Vs. 1.Yovan Kovil 2.Antony ...Respondents 1 & 2/ Respondents 1 & 2/ Plaintiffs Suseeli Thayammal (Died) ... Nil/3rd Respondent/ 2nd Defendant 3.Jebaraj ... 3rd Respondent/ 3rd Respondent/ 3rd Defendant 4.Josuva ... 4th Respondent/ 5th Respondent/ 5.Grace Paul Daniel 6.Vasantha Durairaj 7.Agnus Paul Prabhakaran ...Respondents 5 to 7/ Respondents 6 to 8/ Defendants 4 to 6
C.R.P(MD)No.419 of 2023
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to call for the records relating to the decree and judgment dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Munsif Court, Thirunelveli in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.224 of 2016 and to set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam For R1 & R2 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R3, R5 & R6 : No Appearance For R4 & R7 : Unserved
ORDER
The present civil revision petition has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 03.11.2022 passed by the I Additional District Munsif Court, Thirunelveli in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.224 of 2016.
C.R.P(MD)No.419 of 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.419 of 2023
Rule 9 of C.P.C to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 22.04.2019 in I.A.No.2 of 2022, which has been dismissed by the Trial Court.
order is liable to be set aside as the petitioner deserves a fair chance to defend himself. It is submitted that the delay is only 267 days and the application to condone the delay was filed with sufficient reasons.
has not explained the reasons properly. The impugned order is well reasoned and requires no interference. That apart, it is submitted that notwithstanding the sale made by the other defendants to the petitioner, the respondents are in possession of the property to the extent that was partitioned between the two brothers, namely, Navamanidhasan and Iyyadurai Devasahayam. Hence, the present civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
C.R.P(MD)No.419 of 2023
counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.
C.R.P(MD)No.419 of 2023
before the I Additional District Munsif Court, Thirunelveli. On filing of such memo, the I Additional District Munsif Court, Thirunelveli shall proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit in O.S.No.224 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of nine months thereafter.
26.04.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn
To
1.The I Additional District Munsif Court, Thirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
C.R.P(MD)No.419 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN,J.
SN
C.R.P(MD)No.419 of 2023
26.04.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ex parte decree and the order dismissing the application to set it aside should be set aside given the petitioner engaged counsel who shifted practice.
Whether the condonation of delay is justifiable considering the absence was due to counsel's relocation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Christopher
Yovan Kovil
Antony
C.Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
