Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Arumugha Gounder And Ors. vs Tmt. Palaniammal And Ors. on 7 November, 2000

E.A.Chandrasekaran vs Venkatachalam on 17 December, 2003

In the first judgment cited on the part of the petitioner, since the defendants 1 to 3 were called absent, the trial Court had decreed the suit as prayed for and thereafter the defendants had filed an Application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC before the trial Court to set aside the said judgment and decree and on the said petition having been allowed by the trial Court, a revision had been filed before the High Court by the plaintiff and the same also having been dismissed, he had filed the Civil Appeal before the Honourable Apex Court. The Honourable Apex Court giving expression to Order XVII Rules 2 and 3 of C.P.C. and extracting the said Rules, would remark that the case was having imprints of an ex-parte adjudication and not of a decision on merits and there was not even any indication as to what evidence was evaluated and/or whether the merits were tested and had ultimately decided in the following terms:
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V Kanagaraj - Full Document

Muneeswari vs Vanmathi on 9 October, 2009

8. Per contra, Mr.G.Mariappan, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that if the Explanation to Rule 2 of Order 17 is taken into account, then on the evidence of DW.1 in chief available on record the court has a discretion to dispose of the suit as contemplated under Order 17 Rule 3(a) of CPC. He would place reliance on the decision of this court rendered in the case of Arumuga Gounder and others Vs. Palaniammal and others [2001-1-MLJ-15].
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - A Jagadeesan - Full Document

M.Seethalakshmi vs Selvarani on 19 November, 2024

1. She also marked 18 documents. The question of passing an ex parte decree does not arise at all and the learned counsel for the respondent would rely upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2001 1 LW 167 in the case of Arumugha Gounder and another Vs. Palaniammal and others, and filed a synopsis indicating the dates and events. By pointing out the dates and events, he would submit that the plaintiff's side evidence was closed on 17.07.2017 and on 30.08.2017 revision petitioner 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1713 of 2023 filed I.A.No.690 and 691 of 2017 to recall and re-examine the plaintiff. Those IAs were dismissed and later posted for defendant side evidence. On 31.08.2018, defendant side evidence was closed. Later on application, D.W.1, was examined. Later it was posted for cross examination. she failed to appear inspite of repeated adjournment and finally it was closed on 27.08.2019. On 05.09.2019, plaintiff side arguments was heard and there was no argument on the side of the defendant. Judgment was pronounced on 10.09.2019. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to file only an appeal against the judgment, since the judgment is rendered under Order 17 Rule 3 of C.P.C., and not under Order 17 Rule 2 of C.P.C.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1