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

1997 Supreme(Mad) 1242

S.JAGADEESAN
Siva Subramaniam – Appellant
Versus
The Collector, Periyar District – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:M.M. Sundresh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:A. Aruniugham, Government Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. By consent of both the counsel, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioners herein filed the suit, O.S. No. 637 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Erode, Periyar District for declaration of their title. The said suit was decreed exparte on 24.7.1991. The respondent filed an application, I.A. No. 902 of 1993 on 31.5.1993 for condoning the delay of 646 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte decree. The lower court has allowed the application by order dated 16.2.1996 as against which the present Revision has been filed. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the suit has been decreed exparte on 24.7.1991 and this was communicated to the respondent by the counsel for the petitioner as early as 18.5.1992. The acknowledgments by the Collector and Tahsildar for the receipt of the notice sent by the petitioners had been marked as Ex.P-1 and P-2. The lower Court, without considering the same, has proceeded on the basis that by virtue of the exparte decree, the individuals are not put to loss but, only the public are put to loss and this view of the lower Court may not be correct. When th










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