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

1981 Supreme(Mad) 446

P.VENUGOPAL
Zaibunissa Bivi – Appellant
Versus
The Madras State Wakf Board Represented By Its Secretary – Respondent


ORDER

P. Venugopal, J.

1. The third defendant in the suit is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, and the plaintiff is the respondent. An exparte decree was passed against the petitioner on 25th May, I968. She filed an application A. No. 1347 of 1977 on 19th July, 1977 after a delay of 8 years and 9 months, for setting aside the exparte decree. This petitioner's contention was that the suit summons was not served on her and the application setting aside the ex pane decree was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the decree. The trial Court held that there was service of suit summons on the petitioner, and as the application to set aside the ex parte decree was not filed within thirty days from the date of decree, it refused to set aside the ex parte decree against which the present civil revision petition is filed.

2. The petitioner was impleaded as the third defendant in the suit as per the order passed in IA. No. 342 of 1968 on 15th February, 1968, In I.A. 659 of 1968, dated 20th February, 1968, the schedule of the suit property came to be amended. In the plaint it is stated that the third defendant came to be impleaded as per the orders passed in I.A. 659





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