Allowed

Color Chemicals a Registered Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partner M Ponnuswami v. Match Point a Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partners Defendants 2 To 10 Herein

Madras HC4 Nov 2024A/3764/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of applications to restore two civil suits dismissed for default due to non-filing of proof affidavits. Finding sufficient cause for the plaintiff’s failure and noting that the defendants also failed to file affidavits, the court allowed the applications, restored the suits, and permitted revival of an attachment order.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; suits restored to file; liberty granted to file fresh applications for revival of attachment order.

Color Chemicals a Registered Partnership Firm… — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

A.Nos.3764 & 3765 of 2024 in C.S. Nos.491 & 496 of 2014

¶2

A.Nos.3764 & 3765 of 2024 in C.S. Nos.491 & 496 of 2014

¶3

ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.

¶4

These applications have been filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking to restore the Civil Suits, namely, C.S. Nos.491 & 496 of 2014, which were dismissed for default on 04.06.2024 and the applicant/plaintiff is also seeking for restoration of all the connection applications.

¶5

2.On account of non-filing of the proof affidavit by the applicant/plaintiff, the suits filed by the plaintiff in C.S. Nos.491 & 496 of 2014 were dismissed for default by order of this Court dated 04.06.2024. In paragraph Nos.6 to 9 of the affidavit filed in support of these applications, the applicant/plaintiff has stated the reasons for not filing the proof affidavit as directed by this Court in its earlier order dated 29.04.2024.

¶6

3.Counter affidavits have been filed by the eighth respondent/tenth defendant denying the contentions of the applicant/plaintiff. However, as seen from the same, the said contentions pertain to the merits of the suit claim. The counter affidavits filed by the eighth respondent/tenth defendant have not dealt

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶8

A.Nos.3764 & 3765 of 2024 in C.S. Nos.491 & 496 of 2014

¶9

with whether the applicant/plaintiff has shown sufficient cause for restoring the Civil Suits namely, C.S. Nos.491 & 496 of 2014, which were dismissed for default on 04.06.2024. The respondents 1, 6, 7 & 9 have served a copy of the counter on the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff, but, the same has not been filed into the registry of this Court.

¶10

4.The suits have been filed for recovery of money based on the goods sold and delivered to the defendants. The objections raised by the eighth respondent/ tenth defendant in its counter affidavits also deal only with the merits of the suit claim and they do not deal with the merits of the instant applications, which have been filed only to restore the suits, which were dismissed for default on account of non-filing of the proof affidavit by the applicant/plaintiff on the specified date.

¶11

5.Admittedly, the defendants have also not filed their proof affidavits on the specified date, as directed by this Court in its earlier order dated 29.04.2024. Sufficient reasons have been given by the applicant/plaintiff in the affidavits filed in support of these applications for not filing the proof affidavits on the specified date as directed by this Court. The reasons given by the applicant/plaintiff seems to be a reasonable one.

¶12

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

¶13

2/4

¶14

A.Nos.3764 & 3765 of 2024 in C.S. Nos.491 & 496 of 2014

¶15

6.This Court is of the considered view that sufficient cause has been shown

¶16

by the applicant/plaintiff for not filing the proof affidavit on the specified date as directed by this Court in its earlier order dated 29.04.2024.

¶17

7.Learned counsel for the respondents 1, 6, 7 and 9 has also not raised any objection with regard to the reasons given by the applicant/plaintiff for filing these applications. He would only go to the merits of the applicant's/plaintiff's claim and would submit that un-necessary parties have been arrayed as party defendants in the suit.

¶18

8.This Court is now concerned only with these applications filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking to restore the suits, which were dismissed for default. Admittedly, only one adjournment was sought for by the applicant/plaintiff to file the proof affidavit. But, despite the same, this Court had rejected the said request and had dismissed the suits for default on 04.06.2024. Admittedly, proof affidavits were not filed on behalf of the defendants as well on the specified date. The other defendants have also not raised any serious objection with regard to the reasons

¶19

given by the applicant/plaintiff for filing these applications seeking to restore the suits, which were dismissed for default.

¶20

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

¶21

3/4

¶22

A.Nos.3764 & 3765 of 2024 in C.S. Nos.491 & 496 of 2014

¶23

ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.

¶24

vga

¶25

9.After giving due consideration to the aforementioned factors and in view of the fact that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant/plaintiff for not filing the proof affidavit on the specified date, this Court is inclined to allow these applications, which have been filed to restore the suits, which were dismissed for default on 04.06.2024 as sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant/ plaintiff.

¶26

10.Accordingly, these applications are allowed as prayed for and the suits are restored to file.

¶27

11.Post the suits for filing of proof affidavits and for filing of Case Management Schedule on 18.11.2024. Since connected applications were closed by this Court's order dated 04.06.2024, liberty is granted to the applicant/plaintiff to file fresh applications seeking to revive the earlier order of attachment granted in respect of the property, owned by the eighth respondent/tenth defendant.

¶28

04.11.2024

¶29

vga

¶30

A.Nos.3764 & 3765 of 2024 in C.S. Nos.491 & 496 of 2014

¶31

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

¶32

4/4

Color Chemicals a Registered Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partner M Ponnuswami v. Match Point a Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partners Defendants 2 To 10 Herein

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Color Chemicals a Registered Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partner M Ponnuswami v. Match Point a Partnership Firm Represented By Its Partners Defendants 2 To 10 Herein

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Maheswaran Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Raakumuthu, Vs the General Manager

The Correspondent, Vs the Director of School

K.Ramu (Deceased) Vs Adyar Ananda Bhavan

V Purnachandra Rao Vs Gs Srinivasa Rao

Pushkar Insulation and Packing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.