Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
R.Kumararaja – Appellant
Versus
D.V. Nagarajan (died) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to set aside ex-parte decree. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial court's return of applications was procedurally improper. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. court mandates numbering and consideration of applications. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. civil revision petitions allowed. (Para 9) |
COMMON ORDER
Heard Mr.J.Saravanavel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. These two revisions have been filed by the 11th defendant in O.S.No. 758 of 2008. The petitioner remained ex-parte before the trial Court and subsequently, the other defendants were also set exparte except for Government Authority, namely, Thasildhar, who is arrayed as one of the defendant and the suit was decreed ultimately.
3. The applications were taken out by the revision petitioner to set aside the order under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act .
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the trial Court has erroneously returned both the applications stating the suit has been disposed of as a contested decree on 18.11.2013 and therefore, the applications cannot be taken on Board.
5. The learned counsel rightly contended that proviso to Order 9 Rule
13 CPC would clearly
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
