S.JAGADEESAN
Maruthai – Appellant
Versus
Manickam – Respondent
1. The petitioner in all the civil revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent Manickam filed eviction proceedings in P.No.10 of 1993 before the Revenue Court/Special Deputy Collector, Tiruchirapalli against the petitioner as well as one Sanasi for arrears of rent for the period from 1982 to 1991. On 2.11.1993 an ex parte order was passed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,392 within 30 days. Since the petitioner did not comply with the said direction, eviction was ordered. The landlord filed E.P.No.31 of 1994 for evicting the respondents therein. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed a counter, contending that no summons were served on the petitioner in P.No.10 of 1993 and the order was also not communicated to him. Hence, he was not aware of the eviction proceedings before the Revenue Court. However, the petitioner filed M.P.No.55 of 1994 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2.11.1993. M.P.No.53 of 1994 has been filed by the petitioner for the stay of E.P.No.31 of 1994 and M.P.No.54 of 1994 for condoning the delay of 271 days in seeking to set aside the ex parte order. The Revenue Court, by order dated 30.8.1994 dismissed M.P.No.53 to 55
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.