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

2004 Supreme(Mad) 683

S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN
Rathinathammal – Appellant
Versus
Muthusamy and others – Respondent


Advocates:
T.Ayyasamy, for Petitioner.
V.Raghavachari, for Respondent No.2.

ORDER: The revision petitioner is the 11th defendant in the suit O.S.No.50 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Pattukkottai. The 11th defendant filed I.A.No.259 of 1998 under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 545 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 7.10.1991 in that suit. The petition after contest was dismissed as per order dated 9.10.1998. The 11th defendant has challenged the said order in this revision.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition I.A.No.259 of 1998, it is stated that the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration in respect of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and also for possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. The suit was originally filed against the defendants 1 to 7 19.9.1987 and as per order dated 26.11.1990 made in I.A.No.654 of 1990 the defendants 8 to 12 were added. But the revision petitioner/11th defendant was not served with suit summons. The records were created as if the suit summons was served upon her and was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed in the suit on 7.10.1991. She came to know about the ex parte decree only after receipt of notice on 26.


















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