Ramadoss.. Rev Vs. Sebastian

Ramadoss.. Rev vs Sebastian

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 11, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/964923

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/964923
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G.Rajasuria
Decided On: Jan 11, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramadoss.. Rev

Respondent

Sebastian

Excerpt

.....under order ix rule 13 of the code of civil procedure to get set aside the exparte-decree of specific performance.4. being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the lower court, this civil revision petition has been focussed on various grounds.5. according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the delay occurred due to the illness of the revision petitioner.6. however, the learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the revision petition on the ground that absolutely, there is no evidence produced to establish that the revision petitioner was continuously suffering from ill- health for a continuous period of 90 days.7. taking into consideration the fact that the period of 90 days is not huge and that the exparte decree in specific performance is touching upon the immovable property, i would like to take a lenient view and the delay of 90 days is condoned, subject to the payment of rs.1,000/-(rupees one thousand only) by the revision petitioner to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.8. on such payment of costs, i.a.no.210 of 2004 shall be taken on file by the lower court and in the event order ix rule 13 petition being allowed and the exparte decree set aside and the suit itself shall be disposed of within a period of three months thereafter.9. with the above observations, the civil revision petition is disposed of . consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. no costs. ssl to the court of subordinate judge padmanabhapuram.

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

11. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.964 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.6731 of 2005 Ramadoss .. Revision Petitioner/Applicant/ Defendant Vs. Sebastian ... Respondent/Respondent/ Plaintiff Prayer Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.210 of 2004 in O.S.No.76 of 2001, dated 13.12.2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. !For Petitioner ... Mr.C.K.M.Appaji ^For Respondent ... Mr.V.M.Balamohanthambi * * * * * :ORDER The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 13.12.2004 passed in I.A.No.210 of 2004 in O.S.No.76 of 2001, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the trial Court dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the defendant to get the delay of 90 days condoned in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to get set aside the exparte-decree of specific performance.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the lower Court, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds.

5. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, the delay occurred due to the illness of the revision petitioner.

6. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent would oppose the revision petition on the ground that absolutely, there is no evidence produced to establish that the revision petitioner was continuously suffering from ill- health for a continuous period of 90 days.

7. Taking into consideration the fact that the period of 90 days is not huge and that the exparte decree in specific performance is touching upon the immovable property, I would like to take a lenient view and the delay of 90 days is condoned, subject to the payment of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) by the revision petitioner to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. On such payment of costs, I.A.No.210 of 2004 shall be taken on file by the lower Court and in the event Order IX Rule 13 petition being allowed and the exparte decree set aside and the suit itself shall be disposed of within a period of three months thereafter.

9. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of . Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. ssl To The Court of Subordinate Judge Padmanabhapuram.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2013 Same Parties Ramadoss.. Rev vs Sebastian Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge G.Rajasuria