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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 2092

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU
D. Babu – Appellant
Versus
C. Shahid Ahmed – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:J. Pothiraj, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Kothandaraman, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner before this Court is the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession and for arrears of rent in O.S.No.158 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Ambur. He is aggrieved against the order passed by the court below in I.A.No.70 of 2010 in E.P.No.50 of 2009 dated 18.09.2010 wherein and whereby his application filed under Order 41 Rule 5(2) of C.P.C. seeking for stay of the execution proceedings, was rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent.

3. In this case, the petitioner as the defendant suffered an exparte decree on 06.11.2008. He filed an application in I.A.No.336 of 2008, seeking to set aside the said exparte decree. The said application was also allowed on a condition that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-to the other side within the time stipulated. The fact remains that the said cost was not paid by the petitioner and consequently, I.A.No.336 of 2008 came to be rejected on 13.02.2009 for non compliance of the conditional order. Thus, the exparte decree passed against the petitioner on 06.11.2008 is still subsisting. Nothing is placed before this Court or contended by the learned




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