Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J
Smt.Palaniammal – Appellant
Versus
N.Arumugam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application to condone delay in filing against ex parte decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding actions post-decree and property rights. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. observations on summons service and sufficiency of cause. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. clarification on compliance with the civil procedure code. (Para 10) |
| 5. final ruling dismissing the civil revision petition. (Para 11) |
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present revision is arising out of an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in and where by the petitioner sought for condondation of delay of 3711 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree in a suit filed by the respondent for bare injunction (permanent injunction).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioners appear to have been served with summons in the suit, it is the specific case of the petitioners that they have not engaged any counsel to appear on their behalf and they dispute the appearance made by some advocate before the trial court. Further, inviting my attention to the judgment passed, without any consideration of the plea
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
