Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
A.Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
S.Manimaran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appropriateness of remedy for ex parte decree (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's directive regarding order corrections (Para 3) |
ORDER
Challenging the Order of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside the exparte decree passed against the petitioner, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
2. At the outset, this Court is of the view that instead of filing the revision, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal. Hence, I do not find any merits in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Let the parties approach the appellate Court and file necessary appeal.
3. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is rejected. No costs
02.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order vrc To, The Subordinate Judge, Thittakudi N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
This unnumbered Civil Revision Petition has been listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Original application filed by the petitioner in this petition may be Ordered to be returned to the petition
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
