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

2019 Supreme(Mad) 281

N.SATHISH KUMAR
Kaliannan – Appellant
Versus
A. Kandasamy – Respondent


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

JUDGMENT :

1. Revision petition filed against orders passed by the trial court, dismissing the application, filed to condone the delay of 1343 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree dated 20.12.2007.

2. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the original suit. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/- on the basis of the promissory note executed by the defendant. The revision petitioner/defendant denied the execution of the suit promissory note and passing of consideration. He also contended that earlier occasions, he borrowed money from the plaintiff and the same were discharged by him, however, the suit promissory note has been fabricated by the plaintiff for the purpose of the filing the present suit.

3. In the suit, the defendant filed his written statement on 14.03.2002 and thereafter, the suit was dismissed for default on 14.03.2002. It is the contention of the revision petitioner/defendant that, to restore the suit, application had been filed and the same was allowed on 31.10.2007 for non filing of counter. He also contended that, the case bundle was returned to him by his counsel in the year 2002 and hence, he 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