Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.Lakshminarayanan, J
Rajasingh – Appellant
Versus
Mahalingam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ex-parte decree resulting from absent defendant in suit for specific performance (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments on sufficient cause for delay condonation and bona fides (Para 9) |
| 3. court considers defendant's livelihood needs and deems delay condonable (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. revision allowed with costs and further directions given to lower court (Para 13 , 14) |
O R D E R
Heard Mr.B.Azhagesh representing Mr.Vignesh for the Civil Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.Balakrishnan representing Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar for the Respondent.
2. The defendant in a suit for specific performance is the civil revision petitioner. His application to condone the delay of 508 days to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 29.09.2016 came to be dismissed.
Hence, the revision.
3. O.S.No.20 of 2016 is a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 10.03.2014. The plaintiff called upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in terms of the aforesaid agreement on 14.03.2015. Since the defendant did not execute the sale deed, the plaintiff presented the suit.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the sale agreem
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
