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

2011 Supreme(Mad) 1563

S.TAMILVANAN
Ponnammal – Appellant
Versus
S. V. Subramanian – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:N. Manoharan, Advocate. For the Respondent: AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel.

Judgment :-

1. Heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 06.11.2009 made in I.A.No.168 of 2008 in O.S.No.536 of 1997 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.

3. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.536 of 1997 against the defendants 10, 12 and 13 who were petitioners 1 to 3 herein. After filing the suit, the petitioners herein were arrayed as defendants 10, 12 and 13, on the ground that they purchased certain shares from the first defendant namely Mr.Veerappa Gounder (died).

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, an exparte decree was passed on 18.09.1996 by the Court below on 18.09.2006. To set aside the exparte decree, the petitioners have filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. along with petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 679 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. By the impugned order, the said petition, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioners










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