PRABHA SRIDEVAN
Kannaiyan and others – Appellant
Versus
Periamalai – Respondent
1. The appellants plaint was rejected underO.7, Rule 11, C.P.C. as barred by res judicata.
2. The respondent filed a suit against the appellants for partition and separate possession. Preliminary decree was passed on 30.4.1985. Thereafter, the respondent applied for passing of final decree on 9.4.1986. The appellants entered appearance on 16.8.1986 and filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree along with an application to condone the delay of 470 delays. According to them, even before the passing of preliminary decree, there was a Panchayat and the respondent had agreed to receive Rs.2,000 in lieu of his claim and also promised to withdraw the suit. The appellants under the impression that the suit would be withdrawn, had not appeared in Court on the date when preliminary decree was passed. Only when they received notice of the final decree proceedings, they came to know of the fraud committed by the respondent. So they filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree. But there was a delay of 470 days which had to be condoned. The trial Court condoned the delay. But in revision filed against that in C.R.P. No.1632 of 1988, this Court had set aside the or
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.