Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J
T.Meera Thennavan – Appellant
Versus
V.Rajaram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of suit, ex parte, and restoration applications. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on delay condonation sufficiency. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. order ix rule 7 not limited; fresh filing allowed. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. order modified with enhanced costs condition. (Para 14) |
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, in I.A.No.5 of 2025 in I.A.No.192 of 2018 in O.S.No.350 of 2017, dated 04.11.2025.
2.Heard Mr.D.Venkatesh for the petitioners and Ms.T.Banumathy for the respondent.
3.O.S.No.350 of 2017 is a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs.
4.Summons were served on the defendant. The defendant did not file his written statement. Hence, he was called absent and set ex parte by the learned Trial Judge on 20.12.2017.
5.To set aside the ex parte order, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.192 of 2018 invoking Order IX Rule 7 of theCode of Civil Procedure. Even in the said application, he did not do the needful. The Trial Court dismissed I.A.No.192 of 2018 for defaul
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
