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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 1911

M.CHOCKALINGAM
Sivakumar & Another – Appellant
Versus
R. Sengodan – Respondent


For the Petitioners:N. Manokaran, Advocate. For the Respondent:
S. Kaithamalaikumaran for A.K. Kumarasamy, Advocates.

Judgment :-

Challenging an order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, made in I.A.No.628 of 2004 to condone the delay of 656 days in making an application to set aside an ex-parte decree made in O.S.No.157 of 2002, a suit for recovery of the advance amount, which was given at the time of the agreement for sale of an immovable property, this revision has been brought forth.

2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3.The respondent herein filed O.S.No.157 of 2002 alleging that there was an agreement for sale; that it did not fructify; that the advance amount was Rs.1.00 lakh, and it was to be repaid. The defendants, who are the revision petitioners herein, had entered appearance through the Counsel; but, they were set ex-parte for their non-appearance on 211. 2002. The ex-parte decree came to be passed on 211. 2002. Thereafter, the E.P. was laid for the recovery of the said amount. On entering appearance in the execution proceedings, the defendants, the petitioners herein, sought for stay in E.A.No.795 of 2005. The same was allowed on condition of the petitioners herein who were the judgment debtors in the E.P., making a deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh within the stipulated





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