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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 1744

C.S.KARNAN
Ramamurthy – Appellant
Versus
Muthukrishnan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:G. Rajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Muthu Krishnan, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The civil revision petitioners herein are the applicants in I.A.No.562 of 2008 and the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.306 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsiff Court, Thiruvannamalai. The civil revision petitioners have filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.562 of 2008 praying to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against the revision petitioners on 26.07.2007 under Order IX Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code. In the said application, the revision petitioners/applicants/defendants 1, 2 and 3 have inter alia stated that the applicant is the third defendant in the suit and that on behalf of the first and second defendants, he has filed the above set aside application. The first and second defendants were set ex-parte on 26.07.2007. The applicant/third defendant stated that he was not able to attend the hearing on 30.10.2007 due to his illness and hence he was set ex-parte. Hence, all the civil revision petitioners have prayed to set aside the ex-parte decree, dated 26.07.2007 and 30.07.2007 in O.S.No.306 of 2007.

2. In the counter statement filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, it has been stated that the suit was filed for declaration. In the sa









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