Back
SUNIL THOMAS
Girija H @ Girija Srinivasan, W/o Srinivasan, and D/o Late Mr. T. K. Hariharan @ T. K. Hariharayan Ayyer – Appellant
Versus
Anandalakshmi, W/o Late T. K. Hariharan @ T. K. Harihara Ayyer – Respondent
Subsequent decisions that have reinforced or adhered to the principles outlined in this case include those that have clarified the procedural requirements under Order IX Rules 4 and 9, particularly regarding the necessity of notice to defendants. These decisions have consistently emphasized that notice is not required when restoring a suit under Order IX Rule 4, but it remains mandatory for contesting parties under Order IX Rule 9. They have also affirmed that defendants declared ex parte do not have an automatic right to be heard unless they actively participate or seek relief through proper procedural channels.
Such decisions have contributed to a cohesive judicial understanding that supports the interpretation given in this case, thereby establishing a well-settled legal position that continues to guide subsequent proceedings in similar circumstances.
JUDGMENT :
Petitioner was the plaintiff in a suit for partition. There were 9 defendants in the suit. Summons were served on all of them. Only defendants 1, 2 and 9 appeared before the trial court and contested the proceedings. Others were declared ex parte. After completion of proceedings, the case was listed for trial to 06.04.2019. On that day, the plaintiff remained absent. Hence the suit was dismissed for default. I.A.No.174 of 2019 to restore the suit was filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. Court below ordered notice to be issued to all the respondents, including the respondents who had remained ex parte. Petitioner filed review petition as R.P.No.219 of 2019 before that Court to review the order directing the petitioner/plaintiff to take out steps against the respondents who were ex parte. Court below dismissed the review petition by Ext.P2 order, which is assailed in this original petition.
2. Considering the limited question involved, the O.P(C) itself was heard without ordering notice to the respondents.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that, the court below ought not have issued notice to the respondents, since in so far as it related to the defe
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
