Back
K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
Chettinad Cement Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
K. Arumugam – Respondent
How to challenge an ex parte decree when the trial court has proceeded under Order 17 Rule 2 and Rule 3 of CPC? What is the remedy available if a trial court passes judgment on merits under Order 17 Rule 2 and 3 and substantial evidence exists on record? What are the rights of a party to appeal under Section 96 CPC when an order is passed under the explained provision to Order 17 Rule 2 and Rule 3?
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 13.08.2021 made in I.A.No.136 of 2021 in O.s.No.56 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul.)
1. The above civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 13.08.2021 made in I.A.No.136 of 2021 in O.S.No.56 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul.
2. The suit in O.S.No.56 of 2017 is filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for the relief of partition and for permanent injunction, in which, an ex parte decree was passed on 18.08.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner/9th defendant filed an application in I.A.No.136 of 2021 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 184 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree passed on 18.08.2020. In the said petition, the petitioner/ 9th defendant has stated that the 9th defendant was set ex parte for non-filing of the written statement and an ex parte order was passed against him and thereafter, the petitioner/9th defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC in I.A.No.321 of 2019 to set aside the ex part
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
