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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 711

S.S.SUBRAMANI
V. Amudha – Appellant
Versus
S. A. Arumugham – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Uthirasamy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Peppin Fernando, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. First plaintiff in O.S.No.552 of 1989 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Erode is the revision petitioner. The above suit was filed to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit properties and the defendants do not have any right to create encumbrance over the same.

2. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, since the revision petition is against an order condoning the delay of 2569 days in I.A.No.1470 of 1997. The above suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and the defendants were set ex parte and an application was filed to have the ex parte decree set aside. There is a delay of nearly 2600 days and the same was sought to be explained by filing the said application. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is stated that the first respondent herein engaged the counsel on 14.6.1989, but thereafter, he met with an accident and fell ill and continued to be bed ridden till 5.9.1997. He further averred that he was under medical advice and under complete rest and not to move about of his residence. It is further averred that the plaintiffs approached an Ex.M.L.A to settle the matter and through him, he ca














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