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

2008 Supreme(Mad) 4616

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Chandra & Another – Appellant
Versus
Venkatesan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:N.R. Rajagopalan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K.A. Ravindran, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a refusal by the Court below to condone the delay of 498 days in seeking to set aside the ex parte preliminary for partition.

2. Heard Mr. N.R. Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.A. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

3. The respondent filed a Suit in O.S. No.86 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/3 share in the suit property. The Suit was filed against one Viswanathan and Nagappan, who were brothers.

4. It appears that the second defendant Nagappan died on 12. 2005 and without impleading his legal heirs, an ex parte preliminary decree came to be passed on 212. 2005. Upon coming to know of the decree, the petitioners who are the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant, filed an Application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree and also to condone the delay of 498 days. That application in I.A. No.1003 of 2007 was dismissed by the Court below forcing the petitioner to come up with the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. It is started by the learned counsel for the peti





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