Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Sundaram – Appellant
Versus
Sivakumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to denial of late reply statement filing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's oversight vs respondents' delay objection. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. allow late reply to protect defence rights. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.409 of 2021 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2.Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. to receive the reply statement, which was denied by the trial court. Aggrieved over that, he preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that due to oversight, the learned counsel for plaintiff omitted to file reply statement for the defence alleged by the defendants in the written statement and only at the time of trial, he came to know the said defence. Therefore, he approached the court seeking permission to file reply statement, but it was denied. However, the reason for the delay is neither wilful nor wanton. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of trial judge.
4.The learned counsel for respondents/defend
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
