SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Ker) 935

ANIL K.NARENDRAN
C. Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Sundaran – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K. Mohanakannan, A.R. Pravitha

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.256/2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad is before this Court in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P2 order of the said court in I.A.Nos.714/2015 and 715/2015 in O.S.No.256/2012 and Ext.P3 order of the District Court, Palakkad in C.M.A.No.94 of 2016.

2. The facts of the case, as borne out from the pleadings and materials on record, would show that O.S.No.256/2012 was one filed by the respondent/plaintiff for return of advance money based on a sale agreement alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant. Despite service of summons, the petitioner/defendant did not appear in court. Accordingly he was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed against him on 31.10.2012.

3. The defendant filed I.A.No.715/2015, under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the ex parte decree and the said application was accompanied by I.A.No.714/2015, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of the delay of 764 days in filing I.A.No.715/2015. The said applications were filed on 5.3.2015.

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top