Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
Dandapani – Appellant
Versus
Chinnaponnu @ Sellapanki – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. counsel presented arguments regarding dismissal. (Para 1) |
| 2. dismissal rationale questioned for trial stage. (Para 2) |
| 3. appeal deemed proper remedy for dismissal of application. (Para 3) |
| 4. time extension granted for filing appeal. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
Heard Mr.C.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Though I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit ought not to have been dismissed for non-prosecution without noticing that the suit is at the stage of trial and is posted for defendants' evidence, considering the fact that the petitioners have not approached this Court straight away at that point of time, had thought it fit to only move an application under Order IX Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code , consequent to the dismissal of the application on merits, it is not open to the petitioner to now turn back and complain that the dismissal of the suit itself was improper and therefore, revision is maintainable.
3. The proper remedy is to prefer an appeal as against the order dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code . I therefore, uphold the objections of the Registry.
4. The Civil R
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
