Back
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.T. Somasundaram – Appellant
Versus
G. Praveen – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Challenge has been made against dismissal of the petitions filed for setting aside the ex-parte Order and to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiff and to recall P.W.1 for cross examination, in the present Civil Revision Petition.
2. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction against the revision petitioner not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff. The dispute between the parties as culled out from the plaint is that the revision petitioner entered into a contract with the plaintiff for construction of a house within a particular time. As the construction has not been completed within the time, there arose dispute between the parties and the plaintiff had took over possession and set right the defective construction by himself. The avements proceeded further that the defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff and sell the property to some third party. Hence, the suit has been filed.
3. In the suit, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 on 05.03.2024. However, cross examination has not been done by the defendant and the matter was adjourned for cross examination on 08.03.2024. Even on that day, as the cross examination has not been done, the defendant wa
An application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable once the hearing is completed and the matter is posted for judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when substantial evidence is available on record, and the Court exercises its powers under Order 17 Rule 2 and Order 17 Rule 3 of CPC, the rem....
In the case which does not fall within four corners of Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, Court has no jurisdiction to set aside ex-parte decree.
A decree passed ex-parte due to the failure to file a written statement within the prescribed time is not covered under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to s....
Failure to show good cause for non-appearance and lack of diligence in pursuing the case can lead to the dismissal of an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The court emphasized the necessity of allowing a defendant to participate in proceedings, ruling that procedural errors in ex-parte judgments violate principles of natural justice.
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
