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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 2701

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU
V. V. Home Makers (P) Ltd, Rep. By its Managing Director, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
A. Gopinath – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: ------.

JUDGMENT :-

1. The above civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the court below in refusing to condone the delay of 482 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.10019 of 2009 filed by the respondent herein on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai seeking for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,920/- together with interest. In the said suit, an exparte decree came to be passed on 07.10.2010 since the petitioner failed to appear before the court on the said date. The said exparte decree was sought to be set aside with a delay of 482 days. The application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.10232/2012 seeking to condone the said delay came to be rejected.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that he was not served with summon in the suit and only when notice was received from the Execution Court, he came to know about the exparte decree passed in the suit on 07.10.2010. On the other hand, the finding of the court below is that the suit summon was served on 04.11.2009 on the petitioner and one Baskaran, the Manager of the defendant Company received the suit summon. W


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