Allowed

The Correspondent, v. Muthukani (Died), Karuppasamy

Madras HC11 Nov 2024CRP(MD)/1137/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC to set aside the Tribunal's ex parte dismissal order. Despite a 955-day delay, the deposit of security demonstrated bonafides. The Tribunal was directed to restore the file and proceed within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the revision petition is allowed; liberty granted to implead insurance company; Tribunal to restore file and dispose within three months.

The Correspondent, Vs Muthukani (Died)… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.1137 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.1137 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD).No.5448 of 2023

¶7

The Correspondent, C.E.O.A.Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Kosakulam, Madurai.

¶8

... Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Muthukani (Died) Karuppasamy ... Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner

¶11

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 30.09.2022 made in I.A.No.1346 of 2022 in M.C.O.P.No.268 of 2015 on

¶12

the file of the MACT (Special District Court), Madurai.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sankar

¶14

For Respondent : No Appearance

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order

¶17

dated 30.09.2022 made in I.A.No.1346 of 2022 in M.C.O.P.No.268 of

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.(MD)No.1137 of 2023

¶21

2015 on the file of the MACT (Special District Court), Madurai.

¶22

2.M.C.O.P.No.268 of 2015 was filed by the respondent seeking compensation of Rs.11,64,000/- with interest and cost. In that petition, the revision petitioner herein remained exparte. So he filed an application to set aside the exparte order with a delay of 955 days. That came to be dismissed by the Tribunal. Against which, this revision is preferred.

¶23

3.At the time of passing interim order on 25.04.2023, this Court directed the revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. That was also complied on 15.06.2023.

¶24

4.Even though notice was served upon the respondent, none

¶25

appears on behalf of him. His name was also printed in the cause list.

¶26

5.Even though the reason for the delay mentioned by the petitioner may not be accepted, considering the fact that the petitioner deposited Rs.7,50,000/- to show their bonafideness, this civil revision petition stands allowed. The order passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside.

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P.(MD)No.1137 of 2023

¶30

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to take necessary steps to implead the

¶31

insurance company of the offending vehicle before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall restore the M.C.O.P.No.268 of 2015 on file, proceed in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of adding of the insurance company. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

11.11.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM

¶33

¶34

1.The Special District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai.

¶35

2.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶36

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

¶37

3/4

¶38

C.R.P.(MD)No.1137 of 2023

¶39

G.ILANGOVAN ,J.

¶40

¶41

C.R.P.(MD)No.1137 of 2023

¶42

11.11.2024

¶43

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

¶44

4/4

The Correspondent, v. Muthukani (Died), Karuppasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Correspondent, v. Muthukani (Died), Karuppasamy

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

K.R.Solaiappan Vs a.Sethu

P.Vijayabharathy Vs S.Visakan IAS

Sivakumar Vs Saravanan

K. Murugan, Vs V.K. Marimuthu

R.Koodalingam, Vs Balamurugan

The State of Tamilnadu, Vs a.Venkatachalam