Allowed

Natarajan v. Venkatesan

Madras HC20 Aug 2024CRP/782/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court considered an order dismissing an application to set aside an ex-parte injunction due to non-payment of costs. Balancing the pandemic-induced delay against lack of diligence, the Court quashed the dismissal order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 25.02.2021 dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was set aside on the condition that the petitioners pay Rs.3000/- to the respondent by 30.08.2024.

Natarajan Vs Venkatesan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P. (PD) No.782 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.08.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.782 of 2024

¶7

Natarajan

¶8

Kumaravel

¶9

Devaraj

¶10

Krishnan

¶11

Dhanasekar

¶12

.. Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants

¶13

Versus

¶14

Venkatesan Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶15

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.794 of 2017 in I.A.No.1378 of 2015 in O.S.No.333 of 2015 dated 19.12.2021 on the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶16

For the Petitioners : Ms.Raji

¶17

For the Respondent : Mr.V.Sivaraman

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 5

¶19

C.R.P. (PD) No.782 of 2024

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the Order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Gingee in I.A.No.794 of 2017 in I.A.No.1378 of 2015 in O.S.No.333 of 2015.

¶22

The suit in O.S.No.333 of 2015 has been instituted by the sole

¶23

respondent herein. Pending the suit, the respondent filed an application for an Order of interim injunction in I.A.No.1378 of 2015. In the said application, the civil revision petitioners were set exparte on 30.06.2016. In order to set aside the exparte Order, they took out an application Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. The said application stood allowed on 19.02.2021 on the condition that the petitioners pay a sum of Rs.500/- on or before 24.02.2021 to the respondent/plaintiff. The matter was called on 25.02.2021. As the amount was not paid, the application came to be dismissed. Against which the present Revision Petition.

¶24

Heard Ms.Raji, for the civil revision petitioners and

¶25

Mr.V.Sivaraman, for the respondent.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 5

¶27

C.R.P. (PD) No.782 of 2024

¶28

This is a simple application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC.

¶29

The Court has found that the defendants have made out good case. However, in order to balance the interest of both sides, it imposed a cost of Rs.500/-. Ms.Raji would plead that on account of pandemic caused by COVID 19, the counsel did not pay the amount to the respondent, which resulted in dismissal of the petition.

¶30

Mr.Sivaraman would submit that the entire idea of the defendants is only to drag on the matter. They deliberately failed to pay the amount, though the Court had granted an opportunity.

¶31

I considered the submissions on either side.

¶32

The learned trial Judge had found good cause and allowed the

¶33

application. It is not in dispute that from 15.03.2020 to 30.04.2022 the country was reeling from the effects of COVID 19. If the cost had not been paid, perhaps, as argued by Ms.Raji, it is due to the result of pandemic. However, as stated by Mr.Sivaraman, defendants have not been diligent

¶34

enough to follow the Orders that have been passed in their favour. Therefore,

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 5

¶36

C.R.P. (PD) No.782 of 2024

¶37

though this revision is filed against the Order dated 19.02.2021, the effective order is passed on 25.02.2021, the said Order is set aside on the condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the respondent on or before 30.08.2024. In case, the cost is not paid, the benefit of this Order will not ennure to the civil revision petitions. In case, the cost of Rs.3000/- is paid, the learned Principal District Munsif at Gingee is requested to expedite the proceedings as the suit is pending for more than 8 years.

¶38

20.08.2024

¶39

vrc

¶40

Index : Yes / No Internet:Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶41

¶42

The Principal District Munsif, Gingee.

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 5

¶44

C.R.P. (PD) No.782 of 2024

¶45

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶46

vrc

¶47

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.782 of 2024

¶48

20.08.2024

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 5

Natarajan v. Venkatesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natarajan v. Venkatesan

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

Sree Ayyappa Bakthargal Saba Thiruniravur, Vs Suresh

N.Vijaya Vs S.Sadhasivam

S.N.Palani Vs E.Saravanan

K. Abinaya Vs S. Karthikeyan

S. Sivasakthi Vs K. Sivaram

Selvaraj Vs Chief Secretary