Dismissed

Raguramaiah v. Vinod Jeyasingh

Madras HC3 Dec 2024CRP(MD)/2913/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition under Article 226 challenging the Subordinate Courts dismissal of an Order IX Rule 9 application. The Court ruled that appeal, not revision, is the appropriate remedy against such dismissals.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty granted to prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum.

Raguramaiah Vs Vinod Jeyasingh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.2913 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.2913 of 2024

¶7

Raguramaiah ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Vinod Jeyasingh

2.Vimal Bensingh

3.Vijay Golden Singh

4.Udaiya Maharajan ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for records pertaining to the fair and decreetal order, dated 24.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No. 180 of 2013 by the Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor and set aside the same by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Srinivasan

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

C.R.P(MD)No.2913 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.180 of 2013 by the learned Sub Judge, Valliyoor.

¶20

2. According to the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the above suit. The suit was filed for declaration of title and the same was posted on 13.09.2023 for appearance of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff failed to appear, the suit was dismissed for default. Hence, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the dismissal order passed against the revision petitioner. However, the Trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by this, the present revision is preferred.

¶21

3. However, under Order IX, Rule 9 of CPC rejecting an application for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit, only appeal has to be filed. Therefore, the present revision petition is dismissed as

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

C.R.P(MD)No.2913 of 2024

¶25

not maintainable. However, liberty is given to the revision petitioner to

¶26

prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum excluding the time spent in

¶27

filing the revision petition.

¶28

4. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.

¶29

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

03.12.2024

¶31

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR

¶32

Note: Registry is directed to return the fair and decreetal order to the petitioner after getting attested copies of the same.

¶33

¶34

The Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor.

¶35

3/4

¶36

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

¶37

C.R.P(MD)No.2913 of 2024

¶38

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

¶39

BTR

¶40

Order made in C.R.P(MD)No.2913 of 2024

¶41

03.12.2024

¶42

4/4

¶43

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

Raguramaiah v. Vinod Jeyasingh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raguramaiah v. Vinod Jeyasingh

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

Sivaprakash Vs Lavanya

P.Velusamy Vs Idol Sri Aruligu Kalyana

A. Venkatesh, Vs G. Shanthini

Vennila Vs Jeyshankar

Premkumar Vs Adhiraj

A.Joseph Rethinam Vs S.Pankajam