N.P.SRINIVASAN Vs. S.SANTHALAKSHMI
LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-193
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on
February 08,2013
N.P.Srinivasan
Appellant
VERSUS
S.Santhalakshmi
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
V. PADMANABHAN V. R.R. SHAH [REFERRED TO]N BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
MANIBEN DEVRAJ SHAH VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHAN MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
S.LEELAVATHI VS. K.SUBRAMANIAM [LAWS(MAD)-2016-10-18] [REFERRED TO]K.M. AZMATHULLAH BADSHA VS. SANTHI SWARUP PATNAIK [LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-127] [REFERRED TO]
KAPALI VS. G.NEELAKANDAN [LAWS(MAD)-2024-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)C.R.P.(Npd) No. 2980 of 2010 is filed against the order dated 2.6.2010 in allowing the Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of delay of 1828 days in filing a Petition to set aside the ex parte decree. C.R.P. (PD) No. 4223 of 2010 is filed against the order in allowing the Application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree.
(2.)The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff. He filed the said Suit seeking for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction. The Respondent herein is the First Defendant in the said Suit. On 20.12.2005, the Suit was decreed ex parte. The Respondent filed an Application in I.A. No. 134 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1828 days in filing the Petition to set aside the ex parte decree. She also filed another Application in LA. No. 278 of 2010 under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree.
(3.)Heard both sides and the records placed before this Court are perused.
(2.)The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff. He filed the said Suit seeking for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction. The Respondent herein is the First Defendant in the said Suit. On 20.12.2005, the Suit was decreed ex parte. The Respondent filed an Application in I.A. No. 134 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1828 days in filing the Petition to set aside the ex parte decree. She also filed another Application in LA. No. 278 of 2010 under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree.
(3.)Heard both sides and the records placed before this Court are perused.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.