Allowed

J. Samikannu v. Amaravathi

Madras HC20 Nov 2024CRP/4686/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against dismissal of an Order IX Rule 7 application to set aside an ex parte order in a declaration and injunction suit. The third defendant had filed a written statement and was set ex parte only for failing to cross-examine P.W.1, then applied immediately. The High Court allowed the revision, holding technicalities cannot deny the substantial right of participation.

What the court decided

AI extract

J. Samikannu Vs Amaravathi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.[NPD].No.4686 of 2024

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Date : 20.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.[NPD].No.4686 of 2024 & CMP.No.26193 of 2024

J.Samikannu

. . . Petitioner

Versus

Amaravathi

¶11

Vijayan

¶12

Mullaivalavan

¶13

The Sub Registrar, Jayamkondam, Ariyalur District. . . . Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to allow this Revision Petition and set aside the fair and decreetal Order passed in I.A.No.04 of 2024 in O.S.No.52 of 2009 dated 08.07.2024 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Jayamkondam in respect of D3/revision petitioner alone. For petitioner : Mr.R.Sethuvarayar

¶15

For respondents : Mr.D.Gopa, Government Advocate – R4

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Page 1 / 4

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.[NPD].No.4686 of 2024

¶20

Challenging the dismissal of the application filed by the revision

¶21

petitioner under Order IX Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte order passed against him on 18.03.2024, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶22

The suit in O.S.No.52 of 2009 has been filed for declaration and

¶23

injunction against the defendants. The petitioner, who is the third defendant, has been set exparte on 18.03.2024. Therefore, he has filed an application to set aside the exparte Order. The same has been dismissed on the ground that delay has not been properly explained.

¶24

It is relevant to note that there are four defendants in the suit and the other defendants are contesting the matter. The petitioner has also filed the written statement and he was set exparte since he has not cross examined P.W.1 on 18.03.2024. It appears that the petitioner immediately filed an application to set aside the exparte Order.

¶25

In such view of the matter, though there is some negligence on the

¶26

part of the revision petitioner, the trial Court ought to have given an Page 2 / 4

¶27

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

¶28

C.R.P.[NPD].No.4686 of 2024

¶29

opportunity to the revision petitioner to participate in the civil dispute. Mere technicalities are not a ground to deny the substantial right of the parties to establish their case in the pending suit.

¶30

Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the Order of the trial Court dated 08.07.2024 made in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.52 of 2009 is set aside and the trial Court shall afford an opportunity to the revision petitioner to cross examine P.W.1 and proceed the suit expeditiously. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

20.11.2024

¶32

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order

¶33

vrc

¶34

Page 3 / 4

¶35

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

¶36

C.R.P.[NPD].No.4686 of 2024

¶37

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶38

vrc

¶39

C.R.P.[NPD].No.4686 of 2024

¶40

20.11.2024

¶41

Page 4 / 4

¶42

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

J. Samikannu v. Amaravathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

J. Samikannu v. Amaravathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.M.Irudayaraj (Deceased) 1. E. Kanni Mariyal Vs S.UmaShankar

S.Krishnan Vs Mr. Rajesh Lakani

Arulmigu Sridevi Adhi Parasakthi Vs R. Ravi

S. Gopinath Vs K. Ramasamy

M.Kumaravel Vs Illangovai

Annapattu Vs Sathishkumar