Muthulakshmi v. Raju
Case brief
What is this about?
The petitioner failed to appear despite notice for hearing of a review application and a concurrent petition for condonation of delay. The Court dismissed the petition for default due to non-appearance.
What the court decided
C.M.P.(MD)No.4962 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.M.P.(MD)No.4962 of 2017
in Rev.Aplc(MD)No.SR19491 of 2017 and Rev.Aplc(MD)No.SR19491 of 2017
Muthulakshmi
... Petitioner
Vs.
Raju ...Respondent
Prayer in C.M.P.(MD)No.4962 of 2017 : The Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 52 days in filing the Review Petition.
Prayer in Rev.Aplc(MD)No.SR19491 of 2017 : The Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w. 114 C.P.C., to review the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(MD)No.49 of 2017 and M.P.(MD)No.174 of 2017 dated 13.02.2017 by allowing this Review Petition by setting aside part fair and decreetal order dated 05.12.2016 passed in I.A.No.78 of 2016 in O.S.No.1 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Muthulakshmi
- respondent
Raju
Coram
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court