Dismissed¶26

V Kasirajan(Died), K.Anbu Selvi v. K Murthy

Madras HC23 Jan 2025CMP/10676/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Re-hear application; exparte allegation; maintainability of miscellaneous petition; Second Appeal S.A.No.759 of 2017 disposed 29.02.2024; Madras High Court; K Murthy v. K Anbu Selvi; dismissal with liberty to pursue other remedies; service on respondent without engagement of counsel.

What did the court decide?

None; the Court observed that the dismissal shall not preclude the applicant from pursuing other avenues to challenge the judgment dated 29.02.2024. ¶26

V Kasirajan(Died), K.Anbu Selvi Vs K Murthy — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP NO. 10676 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-01-2025

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶4

CMP NO. 10676 of 2024 in SA No.759 of 2017

¶5

V Kasirajan(Died), K.Anbu Selvi W/o.Mr.J.Shankar, New Door No.22, Old Door No.14/15, Saambasivam Street, Thoppugana, Arcod, Vellore District.

¶6

Appellant(s)

¶7

¶8

K Murthy S/o. V.Kasirajan, New No.37, Old No.15, 2nd Street, K.G.Gardens, Peruvalloor, Chennai-600 082

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

For Appellant(s):

¶11

Mr.P.Vijendran For M.Kalyani

¶12

For Respondent(s):

¶13

Mr.M.Stalin

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This application has been filed to re-hear the Second Appeal in

¶16

S.A.No.759 of 2017 which has been disposed of on 29.02.2024.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the parities.

¶18

According to the learned counsel for the applicant, Second Appeal was

¶19

allowed exparte and the respondent did not have an opportunity to contest the

¶20

proceedings and defend the judgment in their favour. Learned counsel also stated that due to health reasons, the applicant could not contact the local counsel.

¶21

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

¶22

P.B.BALAJI,J.,

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent has filed a detailed counter objecting to the maintainability of the petition and further submits that it cannot be termed as exparte judgment as claimed by the applicant.

¶25

5.Admittedly, the respondent was served. However, he did not choose to engage a counsel. The second respondent engaged a counsel, but he did not represent the matter when the second appeal was finally argued. The remedy of the applicant is not by way of filing an application to re-hear the Second Appeal. It is always open to the applicant to explore the possibility of other avenues to challenge the judgment in S.A.No.759 of 2017 dated 29.02.2024.

¶26

With the above observation, CMP No.10676 of 2024 is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. However, the order shall not preclude the applicant to pursue the other avenues to challenge the judgment dated 29.02.2024.

¶27

¶28

K Murthy S/o. V.Kasirajan, New No.37, Old No.15, 2nd Street, K.G.Gardens, Peruvalloor, Chennai-600 082

¶29

CMP NO. 10676 of 2024 in SA No.759 of 2017

¶30

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

V Kasirajan(Died), K.Anbu Selvi v. K Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Kasirajan(Died), K.Anbu Selvi v. K Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukmani Duraisamy Vs M/s.Sepc Limited

M/S Marina Holdings Vs N.Ramasamy

All in Pictures Vs Gautham Vasudev Menon

Sas Hydel Projects Private Limited, Represented by its Whole Time Director Vs B Fouress Private Limited

Subaya Constructions Company Limited Vs Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Indusind Bank Ltd. Rep By Its Legal Executive Vasantha Rooban Abishek I J Vs Palani Raja G