Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Madras High Court

Ramadoss vs Mohan on 23 August, 2016

Author: C.T.Selvam

Bench: C.T.Selvam

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.08.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.2412 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.12421 of 2016

Ramadoss
S/o.Krishnan								... Petitioner

vs
	
1.Mohan
   S/o.Sadayyappa Naicker

2.Thulasiraman
   S/o.Sadayyappa Naicker

3.Balamurugan
   S/o.Sadayyappa Naicker

4.Kumaran
   S/o.Sadayyappa Naicker						... Respondents

	Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of learned District Munsif, Arakkonam, Vellore District, passed in I.A.No.561 of 2015 in O.S.No.151 of 2008 dated 07.03.2016.

			For Petitioner	: Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan
*****
O R D E R

This revision arises against the order of learned District Munsif, Arakkonam, Vellore District, passed in I.A.No.561 of 2015 in O.S.No.151 of 2008 dated 07.03.2016.

2. Respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.151 of 2008 on the file of learned District Munsif, Arakkonam, Vellore District, seeking partition and other consequential reliefs. The case was posted for filing written statement on 05.07.2010. Since written statement has not been filed on such date, an ex parte order came to be passed. Petitioner/11th defendant moved I.A.No.561 of 2015 seeking setting aside of such order dated 05.07.2010. Court below, under the impugned order, dismissed such application. Hence, this revision.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

4. In dismissing the application, the Court below has reasoned that the application has been filed after a period of 5 years of passing of the ex parte order. The petitioner/11th defendant has neither filed any document nor produced any witness to establish that he was suffering from jaundice. The reason afforded by petitioner/11th defendant that he was unable to contact his Advocate owing to his illness was unsustainable, given the present day communication facilities. The Court below, relying on the order of this Court in Visalakshi v. Umapathy & others [2015 (3) L.W. 332], dismissed the application. This Court finds no error in the order under challenge.

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

23.08.2016 Index:yes/no Internet:yes gm To The District Munsif, Arakkonam, Vellore District.

C.T.SELVAM, J gm Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.2412 of 2016 23.08.2016