Allowed

Manager v. Mohammed Ghouse

Madras HC5 Feb 2024CMP/26450/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court recalled a prior order dismissing a Civil Miscellaneous Petition ex-parte. The petitioner's counsel claimed non-appearance due to his name not appearing in the cause list. Finding the plea justifiable, the Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to file objections.

What did the court decide?

Recalled the order dated 17.10.2023 and directed the petitioner to file their objections.

Manager Vs Mohammed Ghouse — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.P.No. 26450 of 2023 in

¶2

Tr. C.M.P. No. 889 of 2023

¶3

C.M.P. No. 26450 of 2023 in Tr. C.M.P. No. 889 of 2023

¶4

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶5

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by this court in Tr.C.M.P. No.889 of 2023 and to

¶6

hear the arguments on the side of petitioner/2^nd respondent herein.

¶7

Today, when the matter taken up for hearing, Mr.T.K.Premkumar, learned counsel for petitioner/2^nd respondent would submit that when the matter was listed on 17.10.2023 with the name and address of the company in the cause list, the petitioner's counsel name was not printed in the cause list. Hence, his counsel did not appear under the impression that the petition was not listed. However, after uploading web copy of the said order, he came to know the fact and for that, he had also filed a complaint dated 01.11.2023 to the Registry stating that when he filed vakalat on 16^th October 2023 itself, his name was not printed in the cause list. In the above circumstances, the transfer petition has been allowed on 17.10.2023 marking his absence. The learned counsel further submit that the petitioner

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1\3

¶9

C.M.P. No. 26450 of 2023 in Tr. C.M.P. No. 889 of 2023

¶10

is having bonafide case and his rights have been highly prejudiced, since he

¶11

was not heard and unless this petition is ordered, the petitioner/2^nd respondent would be put into much hardship and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering the

¶13

submissions of Petitioner/2^nd respondent seems to be justifiable one, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, the order passed by this court dated 17.10.2023 is recalled and opportunity was given to the petitioner/2^nd respondent for filing his objections.

¶14

Post the Tr.C.M.P. on 12.02.2024.

¶15

05.02.2024

¶16

rpp

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2\3

¶18

C.M.P. No. 26450 of 2023 in Tr. C.M.P. No. 889 of 2023

¶19

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶20

rpp

¶21

C.M.P.No. 26450 of 2023 in Tr. C.M.P. No. 889 of 2023

¶22

05.02.2024

¶23

(1/2)

¶24

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

Manager v. Mohammed Ghouse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager v. Mohammed Ghouse

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

Jayashree Vs M.Tamilselvan

U.Djegodiche @ Ramakrishnan @ Sathish Vs the Station House Officer

K.Radha Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Arivusudar Vs the State Rep.by

Manager Vs Mohammed Ghouse

T.Anandhan Vs State Rep by