Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
P.Sandeep – Appellant
Versus
A.Vijay Ratheesh – Respondent
ORDER :
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The revision impugnes the correctness of the order passed by the learned I Assistant City Civil Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in I.A.No.10243 of 2018 in O.S.No.3066 of 2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.
3. O.S.No.3066 of 2018 is an under-chapter suit. It is presented on the foot of a promissory note for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest. The plaintiff claimed that, despite a demand to repay the amount, the first defendant, who is the executant of the pro- note, and the second defendant, who is its oral guarantor, did not honor the same.
4. Summons were served on the defendants as contemplated under Order XXXVII.
5. The defendants entered appearance through a counsel. They also gave a notice of appearance. Thereafter, they filed an application in I.A.No.10243 of 2018 seeking leave to defend.
6. In the counter to the said application, the plaintiff pleaded that the leave to defend application is not maintainable, since the defendants have not filed the same within 10 days from the date of service of summons for judg
The court emphasized that minor procedural delays can be condoned when reasonable explanations are provided, reinforcing the principle of procedural fairness in the legal process.
The court upheld that a minor delay in filing a leave to defend application can be condoned if sufficient cause is demonstrated, affirming the discretionary nature of procedural rules in civil litiga....
Point of Law : Order of the learned Trial Judge rejecting the application for leave to defend on merits, ought to be substituted by an order rejecting that application as premature.
Delay in filing for leave to defend in summary proceedings is not condoned without sufficient cause, particularly where negligence is evident.
The court emphasized that litigants owe a duty to track their cases vigilantly and cannot solely blame their lawyers for delays when seeking to condone significant time lapses.
Point of Law : Willful default, negligent attitude or casual approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained.
Delay in filing applications must be supported by sufficient cause; courts should not condone delays lightly as it may prejudice the opposite party.
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
