Arumugam Vs. 1.Veeradas..

Arumugam vs 1.Veeradas..

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 10, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/964156

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/964156
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G.Rajasuria
Decided On: Jan 10, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arumugam

Respondent

1.Veeradas..

Excerpt

.....for the first respondent, who in unison, without any contradiction between themselves, would submit thus: (i) the parties entered into a compromise in the suit in o.s.no.236 of 1986 which was earlier decreed exparte. however, i.a.no.236 of 2009 was filed under section 5 of the limitation act, to get the delay of 2111 days condoned in filing the application under order 9 rule 13 of the code of civil procedure, but that application was dismissed. (ii) being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this civil revision petition has been filed on various grounds. (iii) now then, in view of the compromise, this court might allow the application filed under section 5 of the limitation act and condone the delay of 2111 days in filing the application under order 9 rule 13 of the code of civil procedure, by allowing this civil revision petition and mandating the trial court to take up the application filed under order 9 rule 13 of the code of civil procedure and set aside the exparte decree and after bringing the suit on record, to proceed to record the compromise.3. i could see considerable force in the submissions made by both the learned counsel and accordingly, i would like to condone the delay of 2111 days in filing the application under order 9 rule 13 of the code of civil procedure, by allowing i.a.no.236 of 2009. the lower court is mandated to number the application filed under order 9 rule 13 of the code of civil procedure and allow the same after hearing both sides. whereupon, as per law, after recording the statements of both sides and marking the compromise memo, the same may be recorded if it is found to be genuine and free from doubt.4. in the result, this civil revision petition is disposed of as above. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. no costs. rsb to the court of i additional district munsif, nagercoil.

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

10. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.872 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Arumugam ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ 2nd Defendant Vs 1.Veeradas ... 1st Respondent/ 1st Respondent/Plaintiff 2.Panchipalam 3.Alphonse 4.Durai 5.Nesamani ... Respondents 2 to 5/ Respondents 2 to 5/Defendants 3 to 6 Prayer Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 24.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.236 of 2009 in O.S.No.236 of 1986 by the I Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Arumugam ^For Respondents ... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy for R.1 R.2 to R.5 - Given up. * * * * * :ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 24.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.236 of 2009 in O.S.No.236 of 1986 by the I Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Counsel for the first respondent, who in unison, without any contradiction between themselves, would submit thus: (i) The parties entered into a compromise in the suit in O.S.No.236 of 1986 which was earlier decreed exparte. However, I.A.No.236 of 2009 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to get the delay of 2111 days condoned in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but that application was dismissed. (ii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds. (iii) Now then, in view of the compromise, this Court might allow the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condone the delay of 2111 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by allowing this Civil Revision Petition and mandating the trial Court to take up the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and set aside the exparte decree and after bringing the suit on record, to proceed to record the compromise.

3. I could see considerable force in the submissions made by both the learned Counsel and accordingly, I would like to condone the delay of 2111 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by allowing I.A.No.236 of 2009. The lower Court is mandated to number the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and allow the same after hearing both sides. Whereupon, as per law, after recording the statements of both sides and marking the compromise memo, the same may be recorded if it is found to be genuine and free from doubt.

4. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. rsb To The Court of I Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2013 Same Parties Arumugam vs 1.Veeradas.. Same Subject Education Same Judge G.Rajasuria