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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 677

S.JAGADEESAN
Maruthai – Appellant
Versus
Manickam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T.M. Hariharan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mrs. Mythili Suresh for M/s. Sarvabhuman Associates, Advocates.

Judgment :

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












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