REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

S RATHINASAMY Appellant

V/S

PALANISAMY Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD. TUTICORIN V. APPELLATE AUTHORITY [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. CHANDRA MANI [REFERRED]
P K RAMACHANDRAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
N BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED]
N BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED]
RAM NATH SAO ALIAS RAM NATH SAHU VS. GOBARDHAN SAO [REFERRED]
PERUMAN BHAGVATHY DEVASWOM PERINADU VS. BHARGAVI AMMA [REFERRED]
KATARI SURYANARAYANA VS. KOPPISETTI SUBBA RAO [REFERRED]
SANKARALINGAM VS. V RAHURAMAN [REFERRED]
SUNDAR GNANAOLIVU VS. RAJENDRAN GNANAVOLIVU [REFERRED]
KALIAMMAL VS. SUNDHARAMMAL [REFERRED]
SIVAKUMAR VS. R SENGODAN [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petition is directed against the order made in I. A. No. 513 of 2009 in O. S. No. 31 of 2004 dated 04.01.2010, dismissing an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 21 days in filing to set aside the ex parte decree.

(2.) Short facts leading to the revision petition are as follows:

(3.) According to him, his absence was neither willful nor wanton and hence he has filed to condone the delay of 21days in setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC. Opposing the said application, the decree holder submitted that when E. A. No. 254 of 2009 in E. P. No. 41 of 2009 was pending for arrest, an application to set aside the ex parte decree has been filed, wherein, the petitioner contended that he was taking native treatment at Kollimalai during June, 2009 and he therefore submitted that the petitioner has not come out with correct facts.

Click here to view full judgment.

S RATHINASAMY Vs. PALANISAMY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address