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

1997 Supreme(Mad) 10

P.SATHASIVAM
Gomathi Ammal – Appellant
Versus
Madhusoodanan Nair and another – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. K. Sreekumaran Nair, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. T.R.Rajaraman, Advocate for the Respondents.

Judgment :

1. Eighth defendant in O.S.No.192 of 1992 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai aggrieved against the order in I.A.No.109 of 1994 wherein the court below has dismissed his petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has approached this Court by way of the present revision.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.109 of 1994 the petitioner herein submitted that she came to know that an ex parte decree was passed against her on 29. 92 only on 20.11.93 through her present advocate. She further contended that for the last 30 years she is residing at Bangalore and 1982 onwards she was suffering from rheumatism and due to the said ailment she could not move freely. In those circumstance, she did not go over to Kuzhithurai to ascertain the position of the case. Only on 20.11.93 she came to know about the ex parte decree passed against her on 29. 92 through her present counsel and immediately she filed the present petition within 30 days which is from the date of her knowledge.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein wherein it is contended that the petitioner/8th defendant, plaintiff and defendants 7,9 and 10






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