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

2015 Supreme(Mad) 60

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
Pachamuthu – Appellant
Versus
K. Thangamuthu – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:P. Valliappan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:N. Manokaran, Advocate.

Judgment

1. Heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondent. The impugned order of the trial court and other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

2. This is a revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dismissing an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 29.01.2010 made in O.S.No.36/2009 on the file of Sub Court, Sankari.

3. A Preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure relying on the proviso to sub-Section (1), which reads as follows:

“Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.”

4. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent









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