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

1987 Supreme(Mad) 304

M.N.CHANDURKAR
Muniammal – Appellant
Versus
Sakkubai and Another – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.T. Paul Pandian, T. Dhanya Kumar, Advocates.

Judgment :-

1. The question which has been argued vehemently by the parties in this revision petition is, whether there is jurisdiction in the Civil Court to extend the time for payment of costs where a conditional order is made by the Court allowing a petition on payment of costs with a direction that otherwise the petition will stand dismissed. We are really not concerned with the merits of the application which was made by the petitioner-defendant for setting aside an ex parte decree.

2. The suit in question is a suit for possession filed on 17-8-1982. An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner on 15-12-1983. Two of the defendants, being defendants Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 16-7-1985. That application came to be dismissed for default on 3-12-1985. The defendants, therefore, filed I A. 1183 of 1986 to set aside the dismissal of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree on 20-12-1985. This application remained pending. Ultimately, on 23-1-1987, an order came to be made on this application allowing it on payment of costs on or before 2-2-1987, with a direction that otherwise the petition will stand dismissed. 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