EZRA SARGUNAM Vs. D.JANARDHANAM
LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-7
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on
September 20,2016
Ezra Sargunam
Appellant
VERSUS
D.Janardhanam
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF BIHAR V. KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]RAMLAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SARPANCH LONAND GRAMPANCHAYAT VS. RAMGIRI GOSAVI [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAINARA KHATOON 1 VS. HOME SECRETARY STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH SIBIA VS. VIJAY KUMAR SOOD [REFERRED TO]
COMMON CAUSE A REGISTERED SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL VS. SHYAMLAL [REFERRED TO]
DAVINDER PAL SEHGAL VS. PARTAP STEEL ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH SAO ALIAS RAM NATH SAHU VS. GOBARDHAN SAO [REFERRED TO]
REENA SADH VS. ANJANA ENTERPRISES [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL AROMA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD VS. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
PARIMAL VS. VEENA ALIAS BHARTI [REFERRED TO]
R M BEDI VS. VIJAYESWARI TEXTILES LTD [REFERRED TO]
SREI INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD VS. FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHALYA DEVI VS. PREM CHAND [REFERRED TO]
MAYA DEVI VS. LALTA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
M.DURAISWAMY, J. -
(1.)Challenging the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.29 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpattu, confirming the order passed in I.A.No.820 of 2002 in O.S.No.29 of 1995
on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, the defendant has filed the above Civil Revision
Petition.
(2.)The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.29 of 1995 for permanent injunction.
(3.)The defendant filed his written statement and was contesting the suit. While so, the defendant remained absent before the trial Court and an exparte decree was passed against him on 21.12.1998. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.191 of 1999 to set aside the exparte decree, which was allowed by the trial Court on 17.06.1999. Pursuant to which, the exparte decree dated 21.12.1998 was set aside. Subsequently, one Rev.John Polycarp filed an application in I.A.No.767 of 1999 under Order 3 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code to authorize him to make, do such appearance, applications and acts on behalf of the defendant. After contest, the trial Court dismissed the application in I.A.No.767 of 1999. Admittedly, the order passed in I.A.No.767 of 1999 was not challenged by the defendant and the same has become final. Thereafter, on 11.09.2002, the defendant remained absent before the trial Court, hence, again an exparte decree was passed against him. Subsequently, on 30.09.2002, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.820 of 2002 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the exparte decree dated 11.09.2002. The affidavit filed in support of the said petition was filed by Rev.John Polycarp as the Power of Attorney of the defendant. The application filed by the defendant was contested by the plaintiff. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both parties, dismissed the application. Against which the defendant preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.29 of 2003 and the Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
(2.)The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.29 of 1995 for permanent injunction.
(3.)The defendant filed his written statement and was contesting the suit. While so, the defendant remained absent before the trial Court and an exparte decree was passed against him on 21.12.1998. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.191 of 1999 to set aside the exparte decree, which was allowed by the trial Court on 17.06.1999. Pursuant to which, the exparte decree dated 21.12.1998 was set aside. Subsequently, one Rev.John Polycarp filed an application in I.A.No.767 of 1999 under Order 3 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code to authorize him to make, do such appearance, applications and acts on behalf of the defendant. After contest, the trial Court dismissed the application in I.A.No.767 of 1999. Admittedly, the order passed in I.A.No.767 of 1999 was not challenged by the defendant and the same has become final. Thereafter, on 11.09.2002, the defendant remained absent before the trial Court, hence, again an exparte decree was passed against him. Subsequently, on 30.09.2002, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.820 of 2002 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the exparte decree dated 11.09.2002. The affidavit filed in support of the said petition was filed by Rev.John Polycarp as the Power of Attorney of the defendant. The application filed by the defendant was contested by the plaintiff. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both parties, dismissed the application. Against which the defendant preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.29 of 2003 and the Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.