The applicant sought restoration of a civil suit dismissed for default. The court allowed the restoration application after verifying that the directed cost was paid and sufficient cause for the delay was established. The suit was restored to file.
Suit restored to file.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
A. No.6598 of 2024 in C.S. No.391 of 2008
R.Padmavathi and two others .. Applicants
vs
T.V.D.Pragaspathy and another .. Respondents
For applicants : Ms.Vishanlini for M/s.Ramalingam and Associates
ORDER
There is no representation on the side of the respondents.
2.This application has been filed to restore the suit, which was dismissed
for default on 27.02.2023. Earlier, the very same applicants had filed an application seeking to condone the delay of 403 days in filing the restoration application, which was dismissed for non-prosecution.
3.While allowing the said application, this Court, as a condition precedent,
1/3
had directed the applicants to pay cost of Rs.25,000/-. As directed by this Court,
ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.
vga
the cost of Rs.25,000/- has been paid as recorded in this Court's order dated 29.11.2024. Pursuant to the allowing of the condone delay application, the present application is numbered and it has been filed to restore the suit, which was dismissed for non-prosecution.
4.Since sufficient cost has already been paid by the applicants in the earlier application as stated supra and since this Court is also satisfied with the reasons contained in the affidavit filed in support of this application as sufficient cause has been shown, this application is allowed as prayed for and the suit is restored to file.
5.It is also to be noted that there is no representation on the side of the respondents. Post the matter on 07.02.2025.
20.12.2024
vga
A. No.6598 of 2024 in C.S. No.391 of 2008
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit dismissed for default should be restored following payment of cost and sufficient cause being shown?
R.Padmavathi and two others
T.V.D.Pragaspathy and another
Abdul Quddose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
