Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Deva Charles – Appellant
Versus
Selvamani – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background of the petition challenging the condonation of delay in setting aside an ex-parte decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the court's discretion to grant a conditional stay on ex-parte execution to ensure a fair trial. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2025 in O.S.No.31 of 2024 by the learned Principal District Judge, Ariyalur, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff had preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Since the relief is claimed challenging the order passed by the trial judge, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
3. Before the trial court, the respondent/defendant filed an application in I.A.No.5 of 2025 under Sec.5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 242 days in order to set aside the exparte decree and the same was allowed by the trial judge holding that in order to give one more opportunity, the application was allowed. Aggrieved over that, the revision petitioner/plaintiff preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
4. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that before the trial court, he took necessary steps to serve the summons, but he was not inclined to appear and file his writte
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
