Allowed

Durai @ Balakrishnan v. Sathya

Madras HC6 Dec 2024CRP/4963/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the Trial Court's order returning an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The High Court held that the Trial Court ought to have numbered the application and decided it on merits rather than returning it outright. The impugned order was quashed, and the Trial Court was directed to decide the application on merits.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned docket order dated 27.09.2014 and directed the Trial Court to number the application and decide it on merits.

Durai @ Balakrishnan Vs Sathya — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4963 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4963 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.27936 of 2024

¶7

Mr.Durai @ Balakrishnan 2. Mrs.Kalyani ... Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants -vs1. Mrs.Sathya 2. Mrs.Jabamani 3. Mrs.Chinnammal ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶8

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order of return on merits dated 27.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.Unnumbered Doc.No.3833/2023 in O.S.No.297 of 2015 by the Hon'ble Sessions Mahila Judge, Chengalpattu by allowing this Civil Revision Petition and direct the Hon'ble District Mahila Judge, Chengalpattu to number the I.A. and decide the same on merit.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Silambarasan ********* O R D E R

¶10

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the

¶11

order of the Trial Court in returning the application filed under Order 9 Rule

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4963 of 2024

¶15

13 along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The

¶16

suit was decreed ex parte on 15.03.2019. Though an application had been taken out to set aside the ex parte decree, the same has been returned by the Trial Court, on the ground that a Final Decree had already been passed.

¶17

Without going into the merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court ought to have numbered the application and decided the issue on merits. Without even numbering the application, rights of the parties cannot be shut.

¶18

Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Docket Order dated 27.09.2014 is hereby quashed. The Trial Court is directed to number the application and decide the case on merits. In case the Trial Court had already passed the Final Decree, it is for the revision petitioners to challenge the same in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

06.12.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order ar

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4963 of 2024

¶23

To:

¶24

Sessions Mahila Judge, Chengalpattu.

¶25

Note: Registry is directed to return the original impuged order to the petitioners forthwith.

¶26

3/4

¶27

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

¶28

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4963 of 2024

¶29

N.SATHISH KUMAR,J., ar

¶30

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4963 of 2024

¶31

06.12.2024

¶32

4/4

¶33

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

Durai @ Balakrishnan v. Sathya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durai @ Balakrishnan v. Sathya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.Basha Vs Vaniga Vysya Sangam

P.M.Rangasami Vs v. Ramkumar

P.M.Rangasami Vs v. Ramkumar

Balan Vs Mahendrakumar

Sathya Vs Thiru. Murugesan

Thangapappu Ammal (Deceased) Kamaraj (Deceased) 1. K. Pandian Vs Lakshmi @ Periyapillai Ammal (Deceased) 1. T. Thamilselvi