Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayan, J
Vengidasamy – Appellant
Versus
Gopalakrishnan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit facts: promissory note recovery, ex parte decree, execution initiated. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties contend on illness evidence and delay motives. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 3. no medical records produced to prove sufficient cause. (Para 6 , 9 , 12) |
| 4. family care justifies delay condonation with costs. (Para 13) |
| 5. crp allowed conditionally; decree set aside, suit expedited. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER
The defendant is the civil revision petitioner.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as their ranks in the suit.
3.O.S.No.156 of 2022 was presented by the plaintiff seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest. The suit has been presented on the foot of a promissory note. The suit was taken on file and summon was served on the defendant. The defendant was called upon to appear on 30.01.2023. He did not appear. Consequently, he was set ex parte. For a period of 11 months thereafter, he took no steps to set aside the ex parte order. This resulted in an ex parte decree being passed on 05.12.2023.
4.The plaintiff armed with the decree presented EP.No.18 of
2025 seeking to arrest the civil revision petitioner for having willfully defaulted in
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
