Selvarasu. Vs. Ramalingam

Selvarasu vs Ramalingam

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 13, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/928418

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/928418
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G.Rajasuria, J.
Decided On: Jul 13, 2012
Case Number: C.R.P.(NPD).No.2389 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure,(CPC) 1908 - Section 115, Order 9 Rule 13

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Selvarasu

Advocate Mrs.R.Meenal, Adv.

Respondent

Ramalingam

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure,(CPC) 1908 - Section 115, Order 9 Rule 13

Excerpt

.....animadverting upon the order dated 20.01.2012 passed in i.a.no.212 of 2010 in o.s.no.113 of 2006 by the learned principal subordinate judge, villupuram, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that a delay of 154 days in filing the application to get the ex parte decree set aside under order ix rule 13 of cpc was allowed for no good reason. the original suit is of the year 2006 and in such a case, condoning such delay would be deleterious to the welfare of the plaintiffs, who are the revision petitioners herein.3. a plain poring over and perusal of the records including the impugned order would reveal that the lower court thought fit to give an opportunity to the defendant to participate in the proceedings, mainly on the ground that the petition concerned to file the application under order ix rule 13 of cpc got mixed with other bundles and the trial court believed such version and on cost condoned the delay, in my opinion, warranting no interference.4. in the interest of audi alteram partem, no interference with the order of the lower court is warranted. accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.5. the learned counsel for the petitioners would make an extempore submission that in the event of the ex parte decree being set aside, a time frame may be fixed for the early disposal of the o.s. itself.6. i could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.7. accordingly, in the event of the lower court allowing the application under order ix rule 13 of cpc and setting aside the ex parte decree, the main matter itself shall be disposed of within a period of three months thereafter.

Full Judgment

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against the fair and the decreetal order dated 20.01.2012 passed in I.A.No.212 of 2010 in O.S.No.113 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Villupuram.

ORDER

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 20.01.2012 passed in I.A.No.212 of 2010 in O.S.No.113 of 2006 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that a delay of 154 days in filing the application to get the ex parte decree set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was allowed for no good reason. The original suit is of the year 2006 and in such a case, condoning such delay would be deleterious to the welfare of the plaintiffs, who are the revision petitioners herein.

3. A plain poring over and perusal of the records including the impugned order would reveal that the lower Court thought fit to give an opportunity to the defendant to participate in the proceedings, mainly on the ground that the petition concerned to file the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC got mixed with other bundles and the trial Court believed such version and on cost condoned the delay, in my opinion, warranting no interference.

4. In the interest of audi alteram partem, no interference with the order of the lower Court is warranted. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would make an extempore submission that in the event of the ex parte decree being set aside, a time frame may be fixed for the early disposal of the O.S. itself.

6. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, in the event of the lower Court allowing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC and setting aside the ex parte decree, the main matter itself shall be disposed of within a period of three months thereafter.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties Selvarasu vs Ramalingam Same Subject Civil Same Judge G.Rajasuria, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure,(CPC) 1908 - Section 115, Order 9 Rul...