R. Rajesh v. a. Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
Defendants sought condonation of a 1094-day delay in setting aside an exparte decree, citing ongoing settlement talks and their counsel's failure to inform them. The trial court refused; on revision, this court found the reasons acceptable and allowed the delay subject to costs.
What the court decided
C.R.P. No. 3787 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.R.P. No. 3787 of 2022
- Rajesh
- K.Suganthi
... Petitioners / Petitioners / Defendant 1 & 2
Vs.
- A.Kumar ... 1st Respondent / 1st Respondent / Plaintiff
- The Sub Registrar, Pallavaram Sub Registration Office, Chennai - 600 044.
- The District Registrar, Saidapet, Saidapet Registration Office, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 1094 days in filing a petition to set aside an exparte decree should be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rajesh
- petitioner
K.Suganthi
- respondent
A.Kumar
- respondent
The Sub Registrar, Pallavaram Sub Registration Office, Chennai
- respondent
The District Registrar, Saidapet, Chennai
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court