Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
R.Ettiraj – Appellant
Versus
P.Kubendiran – Respondent
ORDER :
P.B.BALAJI, J.
The 1st defendant in a summary suit, filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure is the revision petitioner.
2.I have heard Mr. Ashok Menon, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.NGR Prasad for Mr.E.Prabhu, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Anandan, learned Government Advocate for the 3rd respondent.
3.Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would state that the petitioner was arrayed as the 1st defendant in a summary suit filed in OS.No.4110 of 2024 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. According to Mr.Ashok Menon, though summons were served on the petitioner, it was his categorical case that the summons along with vakalat were entrusted to a junior advocate attached to a senior on 13.08.2024, with instructions to appear on 14.08.2024, when the suit was listed before the court.
4.Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel taking me through the affidavit filed in support of the application to set aside the ex-parte decree would state that the petitioner had specifically brought to the notice of the Court that the junior advocate to whom vakalat had been entrusted had to leave Chennai on
The failure to demonstrate 'special circumstances' under Order 37 Rule 4 of the CPC precludes setting aside an ex-parte decree in summary suits.
The need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under CPC Order IX Rule 7 to enable complete justice between the parties.
The court ruled that failure to serve summons for judgment invalidates an ex parte judgment, emphasizing the mandatory nature of procedural requirements under Order 37 of the CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that appeal is a statutory right and must be explicitly provided for in a statute. The judgment also emphasizes the principles governing a suit und....
The court ruled that a defendant's failure to comply with conditions of leave under Order XXXVII Rule 4 justifies the decree, and the application to set aside the decree was not competent as it was n....
Setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree – Defendant is obliged to apply for leave to defend only after he has been served with summons for judgment.
Ex-parte judgment – Ex-parte judgment should show the application of minimum requirement of consideration of the pleadings, issues, evidence and the relief sought for rendering such judgment - Litiga....
Litigants should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel; sufficient cause must be shown to set aside ex-parte decrees.
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
