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

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 4594

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R.Vijayakumar, J
Muthuramu – Appellant
Versus
Muthulakshmi – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Subramanian
For the Respondents: Mr.Rajpal Singh

O R D E R

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.116 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai are the revision petitioners herein.

2.The above said suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction not to disturb their possession. When the suit was posted for trial, due to non-appearance of the plaintiffs, it was dismissed for default on 08.02.2010. The restoration application was filed on 04.03.2010 and the same was returned for rectification of certain defects. However, the restoration application was represented with a delay of 1359 days to condone the delay in representation, I.A.No.84 of 2013 was filed. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3.According to the revision petitioner, the restoration application was filed in time, but there was a delay in only representing the papers.

Therefore, a liberal view ought to have been taken by the trial Court.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants had strongly objected to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and he contended that previously the suit was dismissed for default on 02.12.2008

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