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

1988 Supreme(Mad) 493

NATARAJAN
Sagayam Engineering Works – Appellant
Versus
Srivatsa Tube Corporation – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:C. Lakshmi Narain, E. Srinivasalu, Advocates.

Judgment :-

This revision is directed against order passed by the court below refusing to condone the delay of 730 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner.

2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of this revision can be stated as follows : The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money in respect of goods sold and delivered and the suit was decreed ex parte on 3-12-1984. Neither the revision petitioner nor his counsel appeared nor filed a written statement. According to the revision petitioner he had engaged one Kannathasan, Advocate and also signed the written statement and gave it to him and he was expecting communication from the advocate but no communication was received and he was under the impression that the suit was pending. But he came to know of the ex parte decree only on 21-11-1986 when he received the notice in the execution petition filed on the basis of the ex parte decree. According to him, it is only because of the trust he imposed on his counsel he could not fear and so he did not appear in the court and the ex parte decree was passed. As such the delay must be condoned.

3. Opposing the said petition


















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