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

1974 Supreme(Mad) 127

RAMAPRASADA RAO
Meghraj – Appellant
Versus
Jesraj Kasturjee – Respondent


Advocates:
P. V. Subramoniam, for Petitioner; Himmatlal Mardia, for Respondents.

ORDER :-

An application under Order 9, Rule 9, C. P. C. was filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 330 of 1966 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, to set aside the ex parte decree passed in that suit on 29-10-1968 and to restore the suit on the file for being disposed of in accordance with law. This application was filed on 29-11-1968. When it came up for hearing before the II Assistant Judge. City Civil Court, Madras, the learned Judge after hearing both sides, accepted the contention of the respondent that the petition was barred by limitation and in view of the fact that no petition for excusing the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed along with the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, he dismissed the application. C. M. A. 19 of 1970 was preferred to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The learned appellate Judge noted that there was a day's delay in the presentation of the application. But he was in accord with the learned Assistant Judge that as there was no application apparently a written application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the main application was not maintainable. He relied upon an unreported decision of this court












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