Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
T.Murugesan – Appellant
Versus
P.K.Palanisamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of delay in filing applications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's rationale advocating for liberal application of procedural rules. (Para 4) |
| 3. final ruling allowing the revision petition. (Para 5) |
ORDER
The defendant in OS.No.214 of 2015 before the Sub-Court, Udumalpet is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.540 of 2017 which was taken out by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 144 days in filing the application to set aside the ex- parte decree.
2. Despite service of notice on the respondent, the respondent has neither chosen to appear in person nor through counsel. I have therefore proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Kumarasamy. I have also gone through the records filed by way of typed set of papers, including the impugned order in I.A.No.540 of 2017.
3. Mr.B.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would bring to my notice that the defendant was set ex-parte in the suit on 22.09.2016 and an ex- parte decree was passed. In order to set aside the ex- parte decree, an application was filed along with a condone delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay
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
